Is .mobi restrictive or simply smart?

In a post over at the NaturalSearch Blog, Chris Smith posits that dotMobi, although well intentioned, is misguided by requiring a rule that the landing page of the site be in the XHTML format. 

Why? He argues it is too restrictive and content should be left up to the content providers and not enforced. 

I would argue that the shortcoming of that approach is evident in the status quo.  Right now, you can publish content (maybe suitable for mobile phones, but who knows?) and it can be in HTML, XHTML, WAP or any other format -- and under any TLD.  Net result: a promising but stagnating Mobile Internet, and a confused public that cannot tell what is and what isn't the right address for a Mobile site. 

Ask your neighbor, friend, or relative.  Chances are he has tried it once, wasn't impressed (a myriad reasons, ranging from high data charges to a page served in a format that was unsupported) and has not gone back since -- not to that site nor any other site.   

Here is the analogy: Picture an abandoned building in a beautiful neighborhood.  Most would argue the neighborhood, the residents, and visitors would be best served if the building were either restored or demolished and not left there as an eye sore.  Same with the Mobile Internet.

Comments

[Chris Parente]

Alexa:

So this is where you went -- I should have known!

Launching a blog as a main external communication tool is really smart. Hope the trademark registrations period went well. And it was nice to see Neil quoted in the WSJ last month -- good job there by someone.

I may have lost a client -- but for the best possible reason. As I'm sure you're aware, NeuStar bought UltraDNS. Really interesting combination, for reasons you know as well/better than me.

Please give my best to Neil, and Pinky, who may remember I worked with him back in the early Incubator days.

Warm Regards,

Chris Parente