All that will change on 16 November 2009. The board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has agreed a proposal that allows governments to apply for a domain name suffix using their own language and character set. The proposal was unopposed by the 15 voting members and received a standing ovation at the summit in Seoul, South Korea.

ICANN CEO Rod Beckstorm stated:

This represents one small step for ICANN but one big step for half of mankind who use non-Latin scripts, such as those in Korea, China and the Arabic-speaking world as well as across Asia, Africa, and the rest of the world.

The Chinese government are expected to be one of the first applicants and ICANN expect the new addresses to be available in early 2010. Several rules will apply:

1. Countries may only apply for one domain name suffix.
2. The suffix must represent the name of the country or an abbreviation.
3. Non-Latin versions of .com and .org will not be permitted yet, but ICANN is considering the implications further.

How long will it be before someone applies for a Klingon suffix?

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community of organizations, full-time staff, and public members who work together to develop web standards and technology specifications (HTML, XML, CSS, DOM, RDFa, SOAP, SVG, semantic web, etc.).Until recently, those of a polite disposition would describe the website as functional rather than usable or attractive. The W3C hope the redesign will make the site easier to navigate and more pleasant to use.

The new site is undoubtedly an improvement. The design is clearer, far more attractive, and works on all modern browsers (as well as IE6). A flexible layout is used which switches to a “mobile view” single column when the browser viewport width is reduced below 481 pixels. It’s a nice touch, although I’m not convinced many mobile users have an urgent need to access the site?

The content is as thorough as ever, although it’s evident some pages are incomplete. The first sections I visited were browsers and authoring tools — these are of significant interest to developers, yet no content is available? It’s understandable that the site and specifications will evolve, but why provide a home page link to missing content?

Behind the scenes, the site uses XHTML 1.0 strict throughout and every page I tested passed validation. Ironically, the CSS does not validate primarily because of numerous IE6 hacks. Neither does the site pass automated accessibility validation: form controls have missing labels, there are linking issues, and descriptive meta tags are not used.

The “view: desktop, mobile, print” control at the top of the page is powered by JavaScript. Unfortunately, it lacks progressive enhancement: the control never appears if JavaScript is disabled or unavailable in your browser. That strikes me as slightly bizarre: a control which benefits mobile users will probably fail on many mobile devices?

The view control is the only JavaScript functionality I could find. So why does the site require the full jQuery library and a cookie plugin? I’ve nothing against jQuery, but a better standalone widget code could have been developed which was a fraction of the download size and supported more browsers.

Perhaps I’m being a little overly-critical, but shouldn’t the W3C lead by example? I like their new site, but it would be better if the developers had followed the guidelines they were publishing.

What do you think of the new W3C site? Should they fix the validation and accessibility problems? Or are they simply using the hacks and shortcuts many web developers use on a daily basis?

Links:

• http://www.w3.org/
• W3C home page XHTML 1.0 validation report
• W3C home page CSS validation report
• Progressive enhancement techniques: HTML, CSS and JavaScript
• The W3C Want Your Feedback

Windows users are really tired of all the headaches that they’ve been getting over the years, starting all the way back from Windows Me to NT to Vista and now Windows 7. As a result, I think people are looking for something different, and the Mac offers real ease of use, stability and security.

Windows 7 is still just Windows. It doesn’t change a lot. It’s still complex, it’s still really expensive when you look at the cost of the upgrade, and there’s still security concerns. It turns out when you get Windows 7 it doesn’t even have some of the basic applications like mail or chat, or programs to manage your photos. You actually have to go and find them and download them.

For the consumer, there’s a lot of headache and annoyance built in to Windows 7. It’s built on a lot of antiquated technology that doesn’t change from release to release. We think that most people probably aren’t going to make that jump (from XP/Vista), and as a result, are going to be looking for new computers.

Let’s examine his statement in detail:

1. Windows users are tired of the headaches

Really? We’ve all had problems with Windows but does any OS offer a trouble-free experience? I think not, Mr Croll — and Macs are hardly exempt.

2. Windows 7 is still just Windows

That’s a relief — users would be very confused if it weren’t! The OS has evolved and it’s certainly more reliable and less confusing. Perhaps its evolution could have been quicker, but people like what they know.

3. There are no basic applications

Microsoft has dropped Windows Mail, MSN Messenger, Photo Gallery, Movie Maker and several other applications from Windows 7. Internet Explorer 8 can also be uninstalled (to an extent).

But isn’t that what the industry wanted? Everyone complained about Vista’s bloat and Microsoft was fined on several occasions for providing free software that destroyed competitors. It finally looks as though the company has listened, but they still can’t win!

You should also note that the applications are still available. They can be downloaded for free from http://download.live.com/ and they also appear as an optional “Live Essentials” entry in the Windows 7 Update panel. However, Windows users can choose alternative applications if they wish.

4. It’s built on a lot of antiquated technology that doesn’t change from release to release

Microsoft work hard to retain program compatibility between releases. They test and support thousands of applications, so it’s not surprising old code is retained. Windows compatibility may not be perfect, but how many other companies strive to support 15 year-old software?

Perhaps Mr Croll is unaware that OS X has been available since 2002 and is based on a 40 year-old operating system? I’m sure some of the original Unix source code can still be found lurking beneath the surface!

It’s slightly bizarre that Apple’s marketing departments regularly resort to Microsoft bashing. Their most devoted fans would never touch a non-Apple product. Even Microsoft users recognize that Apple make some glorious hardware and software. So why is Apple always on the attack? It’s rare for Microsoft to retaliate.

Has Apple become overly arrogant? Is Windows 7 a big concern for them?

The deal is a massive boost for Google as it attempts to compete with Microsoft, IBM and HP in the business arena. Perhaps it’s the first sign that cloud computing is being considered as a serious proposition by major corporations.

Google’s ambition is to lure companies away from their dependency on Microsoft Office. Their success to date has been modest:

• MS Office is one of the most entrenched business applications. For many companies, it is the primary reason for purchasing a PC.
• Feature-for-feature, MS Office beats Google Docs by a wide margin. Critics argue that Office users only utilize 10% those features, but that 10% differs from person to person.
• Many users develop their IT skills on MS Office. Google Docs may be simpler, but an element of re-training is likely to be necessary. For example, sharing a document with another user no longer involves emailing an attachment.
• Cloud computing is a relatively new concept compared to the files and folders model. Corporations will be concerned about service availability and security.

However, cloud computing can offer significant business advantages:

• Users can work from any web-connected machine at any time.
• Groups of authorized users can work on the same documents at the same time. There will be fewer issues with multiple versions of the same file being shared between personnel.
• Losing a PC, whether by breakdown or negligence, has less of an impact: the data is securely stored online and backed up automatically.
• Staff activity and access can be logged and monitored more effectively.
• There is less need for fast PCs or OS upgrades. Users could keep Windows XP, switch to Macs, or a use a humble machine with a lightweight Linux distribution and retain the same office applications.

The LA contract offers Google a chance to demonstrate their ability to cope with large scale data handling, storage, and security. Computer Sciences, the third-party contractor implementing the system, has agreed to pay a preset penalty payment should a breach occur. With 30,000 users, even 1 minute of downtime represents a work time loss of 2 man-months (although this assumes the unlikely situation that every user is accessing the system during the same minute!)

Business analysts will be watching the project closely.

Would you consider switching to Google Apps within your company? Is cloud computing reliable and secure enough? Are Google’s applications really a viable alternative to Microsoft Office and other fat-client alternatives?

This is a problem that directly affects web developers. We want people to use the latest browsers so we can implement new technologies and techniques without spending time coding around problems on older applications. IE6 development is particularly problematical yet it retains 20% of the market 8 years after it’s initial release. How can we encourage people to upgrade when the vast majority don’t know what we’re talking about? Those users cannot possibly comprehend the benefits of newer browsers because they’re happy with their existing software.

There are deeper problems for Google. The company makes its money from search and online applications. As those systems become more sophisticated, they have become reliant on new technologies such as HTML5. Microsoft has made no firm commitment to HTML5 and, even if it is implemented, they are unlikely to provide support for their legacy browsers. Yet 65% of people continue to use Internet Explorer; they cannot run Google applications such as Wave.

Google is attacking the issue on a number of fronts. They are:

• dropping support for IE6 on sites such as YouTube
• creating IE plugins that add new technologies to older browsers, and
• launching a free operating system that offers a modern browser.

However, user education remains the biggest hurdle. Google has identified that users spend more time surfing the web than driving, but they are more likely to know their car’s make and model. Few users realize they have a choice and Microsoft benefits from apathy and lethargy. Therefore, Google’s latest campaign is entitled “What Browser”; they’ve released a video and a mini-site explaining what a browser is to the Internet masses:

I like it. The video’s short, simple, to the point, and offers links to browser websites. I’m sure my parents would understand it.

Will the video have a major impact? It’s unlikely. Just because someone knows about the alternatives, it doesn’t follow that they will want or use that choice. Browser differences are imperceivable to many people; IE is good enough and they see little reason to change.

However, while the effect of this mini-site may be negligible, this is one small part of Google’s larger campaign. Their success depends on companies and individuals upgrading their browsers. You’d be brave to bet against them.

Links:

• What Browser? website
• Google blog announcement

Related reading:

• What is a Web Browser? No One Knows!
• Google Fixes IE6 with Chrome Frame
• Google Chrome Frame: the Technical Details
• YouTube to Drop Support for IE6
• Google Chrome Operating System: the Facts and Fallacy

China is the world’s second largest PC market, but an estimated 80% of all software is pirated. The primary driving force behind the piracy is price: even Windows 7 Home Basic costs about one month’s income for a Chinese student. Microsoft have addressed software prices to some extent and slashed Office 2007 by over 70% last year. Nevertheless, it still compares unfavorably against the cost and widespread availability of pirated software.

There are signs that law enforcement is improving — IT research company Gartner estimates that piracy rates will fall to 50% by 2012. That would put China on the same level as most Asian markets, but experts still recognize that piracy throughout the region is a long-term problem.

For web evangelists, there is an obvious solution. Web applications and cloud computing can eradicate software piracy. A distribution model using micro-payments or advert-supported revenue could have more success at beating the pirates. Unfortunately, the internet is not available to the vast majority of Chinese residents, especially those in rural areas. Until fast broadband links are widely available, software piracy is likely to remain problem for Microsoft and many other companies.

Compared to other launches, Windows 7 has been a fairly low-key affair. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer will attend the formal launch in New York, but there’s little glitz and glamor:

• A big expensive party could appear vulgar in the current economic climate.
• Microsoft has learned lessons from Vista’s “wow starts now” campaign; to many users, the only wow-factor was how they managed to make XP’s successor so slow and unstable.

What’s New in Windows 7

Primarily, Windows 7 is leaner and faster than Vista. The OS will run on a range of machines including low-powered netbooks. It will boot quicker and allow you to get online sooner.

Vista’s bloat allowed Linux to gain a foothold in the netbook market. There’s a general perception that Linux is for geeks — even though many users would undoubtedly be better off with an OS that is far more tamper-proof than Windows. The risk for Microsoft was that people might use Linux and like it. Although they counteracted that threat by extending the life of XP, Microsoft needs Windows 7 to be a more profitable long-term solution.

From an aesthetic point of view, there’s little to separate Windows 7 from Vista. I’m not a fan of unnecessary desktop effects and I initially disliked Vista, but I grew accustomed to it.

If you’re expecting a long list of new features, you might be a little disappointed. Touchscreens and handwriting recognition is supported, file sharing is easier, power saving is better, XP Mode will be useful, and there are some pleasant desktop enhancements. However, the OS is an evolution rather than a revolution; almost everything has been polished and improved, but nothing radical has been added. Perhaps that’s for the best. Microsoft tried to be ambitious with Longhorn, but the technically amazing OS was never delivered.

Overall, Windows 7 is a worthy upgrade. Whether you can justify the cost is another matter.

Could This be Microsoft’s Last OS?

There has been much speculation about how operating systems will evolve in response to cloud computing. Google plans to release Chrome OS in 2010 — it will be free and probably consist of a lightweight Linux base that boots quickly and launches a browser. However, corporate users are more conservative and wi-fi will need to be universally ubiquitous (and possibly free) before the benefits of cloud computing are fully realized.

The biggest threat to Microsoft is it’s own products. Users are often happy to stick with Windows XP and Office 2003 because it does everything they want. However, it’s evident that Microsoft is switching emphasis to thin client computing (or at least trimmer client computing). Charging $200 for an OS upgrade every few years will therefore become an outdated revenue model. Microsoft will certainly trial pay-as-you-go and advert-supported products. If they’re successful, the same model could be applied to Windows.

Despite increased competition, I doubt this is the last we’ll see of Windows. Windows 7 should put Microsoft back on the right path and the initial signs indicate it will be a success. Let’s hope so: the sooner people upgrade, the quicker IE6 will be eradicated!

Have you purchased Windows 7? Have you installed it? Do you like it? Has Microsoft done enough to answer Vista’s critics?

And the big question: is Windows increasingly unimportant or will users continue to use what they know?

Microsoft learned valuable lessons with Windows 7. It’s leaner, faster, and the OS has been publicly tested for many months. It’s good — even I bought a copy. (Although I may have reconsidered if I’d seen Microsoft’s embarrassingly awful “Hosting Your [Windows 7] Party” commercials first!)

Excitable Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer will unveil Windows 7 at a press conference on Thursday. Industry rumor-mongers are also expecting him to provide further details about the opening of Microsoft’s standalone stores, with the first expected in Scottsdale, Arizona, US.

This is a new venture for Microsoft. As well as tackling Google in the cloud, they hope to beat Apple on the high street. But will it work?

Microsoft manufacture many products, so I’ve no doubt that they can fill a shop with desirable items such as the XBox, keyboards, mice, accessories and software. However, those products are available from almost every online and offline electronics retailer.

The same could be said for Apple’s stores, but they have a stronger and more tactile brand. Apple’s customer base has an unhealthy obsession with the products; fanboys stick with the company, they are less price-sensitive, and are quick to forgive any corporate transgressions.

That said, Microsoft is the world’s most successful IT business and they can obviously see some potential. Perhaps their own stores will raise the company’s profile beyond boring business software? But can Microsoft’s products ever reach the levels of desirability enjoyed by Apple?

Would you visit a Microsoft store? Would you find it exciting? Would you admit to that?

Related reading:

• Windows 7 Pre-Orders Sell Out on Day 1
• Buy Windows 7 in Europe … at Half the US Price!
• Why Windows 7 Will Revolutionize Your Browser Testing
• Apple Claims All Things Apple Shaped

In 2007, the Australian Government-funded research organization CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation) won a legal case against Japanese networking manufacturer Buffalo Technologies. The US Federal Court ruled that Buffalo had infringed US patent 5487069 which was granted to CSIRO in 1996 and covered the “exchange of large amounts of information wirelessly at high speed, within environments such as offices and homes”.

This prompted further legal shenanigans:

1. The case was used as a basis for further infringement suits against other wi-fi hardware manufacturers including 3Com, Accton, Asus, Belkin, D-Link, Fujitsu, Marvell, Nintendo, SMC and Toshiba.
2. A consortium of technology companies including HP, Apple, Intel, Dell, Microsoft and Netgear then brought legal cases against CSIRO in an attempt to have the patent invalidated.
3. As the case progressed in Texas, CSIRO agreed a huge $185 million out-of-court settlement with HP, Dell, Intel, Microsoft, Asus, Fujitsu, Nintendo, Toshiba, Netgear, D-Link, Belkin, SMC, Accton, and 3Com.

Nigel Poole, CSIRO executive director stated:

CSIRO set out to encourage the industry to take licenses for the use of its patented technology. When that did not prove successful, we initiated legal proceedings which then led to proceedings being initiated against CSIRO.

The result earlier this year was that 14 companies settled with CSIRO under confidential terms. The revenue arising from these settlements to date is approximately $A200 million.

We believe that there are many more companies that are using CSIRO’s technology and it’s our desire to license the technology further. We would urge companies that are currently selling devices that have 802.11 a, g or n to contact CSIRO and to seek a license because we believe they are using our technology.

It appears that CSIRO have a tight legal case, but should they be able patent wireless networking as a general concept? Ultimately, is it just the lawyers who win in these cases?

Really, if you think about it, it doesn’t need the double-slash. I could have designed it not to have the double-slash.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Sir Tim explained that he did not predict the hassle the double slashes would cause when he first devised the web addressing system. The problems identified include:

• It looks too technical to novice web users.
• Many users mistakenly refer to it as “backslash-backslash”.
• It’s one of the biggest causes of URL syntax errors.
• An unimaginable quantity of printer ink and paper has been wasted on the unnecessary characters.

Fortunately, the slashes have become less of a problem during the past few years since most browsers add “http://” to any address that’s not fully qualified.

However, I think we can all forgive Sir Tim. Perhaps he could have devised a simpler addressing system, but few of us would have jobs if it were not for his foresight and inventiveness almost 30 years ago.

Are the double slashes a problem? Do you have trouble explaining URL notations to your clients? Does Sir Tim really need to apologize?