Talk:.mobi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Question[edit]

How does .mobi break the principles of device independence? --WikiFan04Talk 1:47, 29 Jul 2005 (CDT)

It creates a separate class of addresses for machines based on what kind of device they are. One of the original characteristics of the internet was that it didn't care whether your computer was an IBM mainframe, a Unix system, a DEC PDP, or a toaster: as long as it communicated via TCP/IP, nobody else needed to know or care what kind it was. Tverbeek 10:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
If I understand the .mobi proposal correctly, I don't think it's intending to classify what sort of device is at the .mobi address itself, but what sort of device is intended to be able to access the material provided at that address -- in other words, it's for Internet services accessible on and optimized for mobile users. This concept, however, seems like it's best provided either by HTTP content negotiation at the normal address of a site (so the same address can serve content optimized for normal browsers or mobile devices depending on what is supported and preferred by the device; there is a standard HTTP request header to indicate this, and I believe the mobile browsers in use now actually do get this right) or through the adoption of a standard hostname / subdomain for mobile sites (just like "www" indicates a Web site and "ftp" indicates an FTP server) so it can be set up within an existing domain. Having a separate TLD for it makes no logical sense. *Dan* 12:08, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think I get the idea. Thanks for clearing that up. --WikiFan04Talk 18:12, 29 Jul 2005 (CDT)
It doesn't. The content served up by a mobi site is in standard xhtml and will render on any device. Using a dotmobi address simply assures that user that the content will be usable on any device including a mobile one. That is not the case for any other domain : they may or may not work or mobile devices, and often do not, and do not promise to.
The term device-dependent has been widely misused in relation to mobi, confusing the term in the domain with the device used to access to the site. A similar misleading argument would be to say that a .tv domain is device dependent, which is clearly nonsense. Many use the tv domain to indicate video content, but the site coding is in no way restricted to televisions: it is once again in standard xhtml.
Device independence as a principle and goal is intended to ensure an internet that can be uniformly accessed, ie on any device, and to do this coding standards are set up and later revised by the W3 consortium, though not always observed. It can be argued that websites using Javascript are device dependent since the Javascript does not work on most mobile devices at present. --Weedisfun (talk) 11:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and warning from Berners Lee[edit]

World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee has criticized a plan to create a new Top Level Domain (TLD) for mobile devices, warning that a new .MOBI domain will break device independence and separate the Web into two parts. [here] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.197.253.53 (talkcontribs) 08:38, 5 October 2005

For the record, this source is from May 19, 2004. --78.3.3.201 18:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Content of .mobi websites[edit]

Which organisation and by what means is going to enforce the type of content is put on the .mobi websites? This is not yet clear from the article at the moment. The only hint that it may indeed be enforced is the fact that it's a sponsored TLD; however registration is fairly open. --195.244.142.202 14:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It may simply represent, short sweet relevant, fits inside mobile device resolutions, numerically navigational, cache'd. etc...Yesofcourse 05:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Mister mtld.mobi, it is not at all necessary to entirely eradicate publicly added material to to this wiki entry to further your corporate spammy efforts. Look around you, do you see .com doing this?, NO. Keep in mind that you are stepping on the heels of the very people who support the .mobi initiative. "Mister mtld.mobi, it is not at all necessary to entirely eradicate publicly added material to to this wiki entry to further your corporate spammy efforts. Look around you, do you see .com doing this?, NO. Keep in mind that you are stepping on the heels of the very people who support the .mobi initiative." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesofcourse (talkcontribs) 16:26, 4 January 2007

Please see Wikipedia:External links for Wikipedia's policy on external links for an article. —tregoweth (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, read it. The link is highly relevant, and interactively educational for readers of this particular entry. Yesofcourse 01:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good read for you tregworth at digg in regards to deleting the .mobi only search reference of an interactively educational custom search for wikipedia users by the above loosely titled spamming spam eliminator...

Wikipedia is full of corruption reminds me of the time i posted about the mobionly search engine (it doesn't get any more relevant) to the .mobi page, and then this editor comes in and revamps the whole entire page deleting mobionly.mobi and continued "seoing" it towards mtld.mobi and even plugging it with anchor text as "dotmobi". it still exists this way today as I don't even bother.

Yesofcourse 01:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Premium names only, regular Mobi users mean nothing to us...[edit]

Although .mobi boasted that they were going to be different it is business as usual. The only sites that will be strictly enforced as far as standards will be those Premium names that ".mobi" has chosen to sell to the highest bidder. In other words the company with the deepest pockets will win. This is Mobi's idea of a level playing field?

To quote Pinkard Alan "Pinky" Brand, Director, New Markets, dotMobi (mTLD Top Level Domain Ltd) "There is also no requirement that any specific type of content be published, except there may be certain content obligations and restrictions placed on selected dotMobi Premium Names that we expect to allocate in 2007 and 2008."

The promise by dotMobi in its inception was that is was going to be different than the "dot.com" fiasco. They stated in their early press releases and company information that they would not allow domain squatting, and standards governed by W3C would be enforced across the board. Now after all the registration has been done and the money collected they have amazingly back peddled and allowed the speculation to continue. BREAK Let the greed continue... (OloObatala 19:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)) UNHAPPY Mobi domain owner

[edit]

mTLD's logo is outdated. Current logo can be viewed here - Please update it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyslist (talkcontribs) 14:05, 24 January 2007

Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottyslist (talkcontribs) 01:04, 26 January 2007

External link removed[edit]

User 84.94.181.141 insists on self-promoting their site mobiways.com in the external link section. If you continue to abuse Wikipedia for your own commercial purposes, you will be blocked and banned. This is your only warning. Removed: * [http:// www. mobiways .com dotmobi mobiWays] - dotmobi domain information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.143.125 (talkcontribs) 22:33, 9 March 2007

Should Wikipedia adopt a new in-line template?[edit]

You can use the .mobi emulator to see how a .mobi website displays on a mobile phone. This comes off as linkspam, but it's one sentence in a larger section that's not an external links section. I wouldn't want to put up a {{spam}} or related template there... Morgan Wick 10:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just remove it. ffm talk 15:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Disadvantages argument[edit]

"This domain (.mobi) will have a drastically detrimental effect on the Web."

—Tim Berners Lee
This is another opinion, not a fact, so it's not an argument for a "disadvantage" of .mobi.--78.3.3.201 21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You could then argue any quote is an opinion. The fact is TBL is a very credible source. There are many other Wikipedia articles with quotes. Should they be removed to? Hendry 11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Small screen devices should be "targeted" with a handheld CSS media type. Encouraging markup targeted at mobiles goes back to bad old days of WAP. [1] It didn't work then and it won't work now. Hendry 18:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion Hendry, however, this is an encyclopedia so please keep your edits unbiased, objective, and factual and always maintain an NPOV. Please refrain from posting your opinions and original research in Wikipedia articles. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please continue to contribute to Wikipedia within these guidelines.--88.3.162.80 15:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Dot mobi is all about making money selling their premium domains. See their Flickr stream [2] for a better idea of their competences. Hendry 11:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User Hendry is openly biased against .mobi and is continuing to vandalize this article with his negative personal opinion. Please discuss potential edits here before changing the article.--78.3.3.201 18:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How is my contribution under disadvantages "personal opinion" User:78.3.3.201? I've cited and reasoned. Perhaps you should instead concentrate on the advantages section? You're openly biased against the important fragmentation issues with dotmobi. Hendry 11:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hendry, please do not accuse other users of being biased simply because they are removing your openly-biased statements. If the advantages section contained parts that were based on a user's personal opinion, I would remove them as well. You asked how your contribution is "personal opinion" so I am going to show you. You state, for example, that "dotMobi promotes the bad practice of embedded (non-separate) presentation for an entire Top-level domain." Since you do not provide any citation for why this is considered "bad practice", it is your personal opinion. By stating that it is "bad", you are also not maintaining an NPOV and are clearly biased. Your bias is further evidenced by your comments above where you stated "Small screen devices should be "targeted" with a handheld CSS media type. Encouraging markup targeted at mobiles goes back to bad old days of WAP. [1] It didn't work then and it won't work now...Dot mobi is all about making money selling their premium domains. See their Flickr stream [2] for a better idea of their competences." You also state in the article, "However since web browsers (Iphone's Safari (web browser) or Web Browser for S60) on both devices share common rendering engines such as WebKit, the difference is needless to make." How does sharing common rendering engines change the fact that on the average mobile phone, a web page designed for a PC will not display well or at all? It doesn't, and you are simply using this to continue your bias. Finally, you state "CSS media queries [10] should give Web designers the ability to target mobile devices if they so need." Your citation of CSS media queries points to a W3C initiative, but you conveniently leave out the fact that the Mobile Web Initiative .mobi is based on is also a W3C initiative. Who are you, sir, to say that one W3C initiative is better than another? You cannot have it both ways. So I will repeat my request again, as others have done, that you refrain from adding your personal bias and opinion to this article. You have made your point clear that you are against .mobi, however, Wikipedia articles are not an open forum for you to express your personal opinion on matters. You have lost credibility with regards to .mobi since you are not able to edit this article objectively and have a clear agenda. I have therefore removed your edits. --78.3.3.201 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I will try find a 'NPOV source' to back up the "bad practice" statement. Can you back up your statement: "a web page designed for a PC will not display well or at all?"? I don't think dotMobi has any W3C mandate considering TBL's article. Hendry 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hendry, when editing Wikipedia articles, you are supposed to find facts, and then state them with proper citations. Instead, you state personal opinions and then go data mining to cherry-pick select "facts" that support your personal opinion. That's not the way to edit articles. You have lost all credibility in this matter and I will be carefully watching your edits of this article. I have also removed your edits once again. Do not bother adding them as they will be immediately removed. Regarding my statement that most .com sites are not viewable on mobile phones, here are 5 quick examples on a Nokia N70 (emulator software by Yospace.com): Citibank.com (doesn't display), CNN.com (doesn't display), YouTube.com (very difficult to navigate), BMW.com (unnavigable), PG.com (displays incompatibility message).--78.3.3.201 21:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've cherry picked the sites and the UA (emulator). Hendry 11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying I cherry-picked the largest US bank, the largest News organization, the largest online video site, the most famous car brand, and the largest Consumer Goods company in the world? Your fervent bias is clouding your judgment. View those sites in any emulator you like (or directly via your mobile phone) and you'll see that the results won't change. In fact, check out most .com sites via your mobile phone and you'll see that they simply do not display correctly. I've undone your edits yet again. I'm also putting in a request for this article to be locked by an editor since you insist on vandalizing it with your biased personal opinions. I will also refrain from discussing changes to this article with you since it is a waste of time and you clearly have an agenda.--78.3.3.201 15:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to test those sites [3] and they all work with:

  • Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Symbian OS; Series 60/0633.18.02; 9730) Opera 8.65 [en]
  • SymbianOS/9.1; U; en-us) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413 es65

Of course things like Flash which aren't Web standards don't work. Anyway, this is side issue. Can you prove to me that dotMobi has any W3C mandate? [4] CSS media queries is the standard how you should target handheld devices. Not by buying a dotMobi domain. Hendry 20:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are not your average mobile phone browsers. The average mobile phone user does not live in Finland. Do you understand that most mobile phone users are in developing countries like China, India, and Brazil and do not have the latest mobile smartphones running Opera Mini? Regarding dotMobi and W3C, I quote: "Our guides are based on the work of leading mobile companies as well as participation in standards bodies like the the W3C Mobile Web Initiative." Regarding your statement that "CSS media queries is the standard how you should target handheld devices. Not by buying a dotMobi domain.", again, that is your biased opinion. Like I said before, we're not making any progress here, you have failed to make your point, so I am done wasting my time with you.--78.3.3.201 23:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You could argue that most mobiles have WAP browsers and you'll probably be right. However there is a clear trend that the Web is being fully supported by handheld device UAs. Just because dotMobi says they are part of the MWI, doesn't mean dotMobi is an W3C recommendation of some sort! W3C is more credible here and they recommend media queries. I think the W3C's "bias" deserves a say in the disadvantages section. Hendry 17:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

W3C is more credible? Uhm, dotMobi is a "supporter, sponsor and active participant" in the W3C Mobile Web Initiative (source), so that directly conflicts with what you're saying. If W3C was against .mobi, why on earth would they allow them to support, sponsor, and participate in their Mobile Web Initiative? You can't have it both ways. Stop trying to push your agenda, this isn't the place for it. --78.3.3.201 02:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can pay to join the W3C, though it doesn't mean they are towing W3C policy and best practice. Hendry 10:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I've been following this discussion closely and have studied the history of your edits of this article. Your bias against .mobi is clear and you are projecting that bias in your edits. Please refrain from editing this article further. Thank you.--JackGershman 18:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC) JackGershman (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I fail to see how anything can be clear to you about this matter, especially as an editor new to Wikipedia. I'm trying to provide a neutral 3rd opinion here, and I can't make heads or tails of this dispute. --Darkwind (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You have the bias. I've tried to improve the accuracy of this article and you revert any additions to the disadvantages section. Even from other editors! Hendry 19:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion requested[edit]

A third opinion has been requested on this dispute. I'd be happy to help provide a third opinion and guide everyone to a consensus. However, I'm not really able to determine what content each of you would rather see in the article -- it's largely a great deal of bickering and accusations of bias. If this is to be effective, I need a concise explanation of what the dispute is, so I can help. --Darkwind (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I requested the 3rd opinion as a particular user keeps reverting edits to the disadvantages section of the article. There are number of issues and I've tried to provide as much evidence as possible to verify the arguments. Though perhaps I'll break them into individual points if I can dig my edits from the history. Hendry 10:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I gathered that much from the discussion above. What I need to know is what you want to see in the article that keeps being removed, so I can provide an opinion about it. --Darkwind (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
What gets removed can be easily seen by diffing Hendry and JackGershman edits. The points I think should be added to the disadvantages sections are:
  • Mobile and Desktop browsers typically share the same rendering engines, so there is no need for special device dependent markup
  • Separated style sheet using CSS media queries is the "best practice" of targeting mobile/handheld devices, instead of again writing device dependent markup
Hendry 13:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I see one main "set" of content that's being added and removed continually. Hendry (t c), the way you've written that content seems like it's specifically written to provoke an argument (although I doubt that was your intention), and it doesn't surprise me that it's been removed more than once, although I would personally have rewritten it rather than outright removing it. Phrases like "promotes ... bad design" could be written much more neutrally. Also, the sentence "Therefore dotMobi practice of recommending different markup content for mobile devices is not needed as they will be rendered the same" is entirely too much of a blanket statement, as well as being bad grammar. That sentence ignores the fact that many mobile devices, limited as they are by a small screen size, NEED different content presentation regardless of whether they technically have the ability to render a full-size web page designed for desktop users. Smaller images, shorter pages, etc., make the mobile browsing experience smoother, and the sentence I quoted ignores that aspect of the debate.
However, that doesn't mean that the points you're trying to make are completely invalid. How about a rewrite instead? I was originally going to write up and post a suggestion for the disadvantages section by itself, but then I realized that there's criticism of .mobi spread throughout the article already. In order to maintain a coherent, NPOV article, I think the whole thing needs to be rewritten. There are already places where it reads like someone went through and rearranged paragraphs randomly without paying much attention to the results. I'll work on a rewrite today, post it in my user space, and link to it here when I'm done, so we can get some consensus. --Darkwind (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at User:Darkwind/.mobi rewrite and let me know what you think. I've done my best to include all of the material from the article as it stands, as well as Hendry (t c)'s points. However, I didn't use the term "best practice" in regards to CSS media queries, since the reference you cite is still in CR status, it's not even an official W3C recommendation yet. --Darkwind (talk) 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just had a quick look, thanks for the effort. I prefer the adv and disadv sections split up. Also I am worried by statements like "unsuitable for display on a mobile device without adaptation". Adaption usually mean "content adaption". The point I am trying to make it that *content* need not be modified for delivery on mobile/handheld devices. I hope that's clear. Content must have it's integrity and presentation can be tweaked with style sheets. Hendry 13:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, see, that's where I disagree with you. I agree that textual content generally needs no modification to be presented on a mobile device; however, in my opinion, graphical, interactive, and other resource-intensive content frequently is completely unsuitable for display on a mobile device and needs significant modification or adaptation in order to be displayed. This in many cases may require that the modifications are performed by the content publishers directly (for example, visit tacobell.com; if you want to see their menu, you have to use Flash. If your mobile device doesn't support Flash, the only possible feasible adaptation would be for Taco Bell to create a non-flash textual version of the menu, which is presently not available.)
Regarding the advantages and disadvantages sections, it's hard to maintain NPOV if you insist on a strict separation between the two (as one cannot rebut the other in a natural flow), but it is possible if you want to work at it.
Overall, though, I think this is getting far too in-depth for what I was trying to do by providing the third opinion in the first place. I'll bow out at this point. --Darkwind (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Darkwind for trying to help out. Content modifcation by the browser/UA is OK. That's a good strategy by Opera Mini Beta 4. Though, let me stress again that content modification by the Web page author is **bad**. It leads to all sorts of fragmentation issues. dotMobi in reality encourages authors to modify content for the mobile device. Hendry 08:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup[edit]

Recently, Hu12's minor cleanup was reverted (twice). These changes did not dramatically affect the article, other than to remove content that doesn't meet the external links guideline. (For example, there is no reason to have an inline external link to the National Arbitration Forum when an internal link exists.) Looking at it more closely, there is a lot of content that fails other guidelines as well, such as the copy for each sponsor. Please don't just revert again; instead, post your objections on the talk page so that we can clean up the article properly. Thoughts? --Ckatzchatspy 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

mTLD global registry[edit]

What use is it to have a company not exist and the registrar not exist if there is a requirement for that? Why are the beginings of these pages linked to something that does not exist? These are questions that confounded me. How is this verifiable information if these key structures of ICANN do not exist? I am putting Citation Needed on this copy. Mnemnoch (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

.mobi is BULLSHIT[edit]

Seriously, what the fuck?

An anonymous person's cursing commentary about their opinion on this TLD is not particularly on-topic for the discussion section for a Wikipedia article. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

.mobi as browser default[edit]

The article states that, "There is a possibility that mobile phone manufacturers may in the future default their mobile internet browsers to .mobi".

While it is true that this possibility exists, there are also a great number of other possibilities that aren't mentioned. For example, there is a possibility that mobile phone manufacturers may in the future restrict their mobile internet browsers to accessing only .mobi domains. In the future, anything is possible - however unlikely.

Which mobile phone manufacturers, in .mobi's 5 1/2 years, have actually implemented this default? Which manufacturers are currently discussing this publicly as something they want to do?

Unless this possibility is actually a likelihood, I suggest it be removed. MedianOne (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)