In today's issue of the Wall Street Journal, Walt Mossberg reviews a number of blog hosting services in the article Taking the Mystery Out of Blog Creation. The article describes the experiences of Walt and his assistant Katie in building their test blogs including  http://spaces.msn.com/members/wmossberg and http://kaboehret.blogspot.com/. He writes

This past week, my assistant Katie Boehret and I tested three of these free blog-creation services to see what they offer. We tried the popular Google-owned service, Blogger.com, as well as Microsoft's new MSN Spaces service, each of which is estimated to host millions of blogs. We also tested Yahoo's Yahoo 360 service, which still is in its test phase. We quickly learned how simple it is to set up a blog, and how addictive they can become.

While using these three sites, we paid careful attention to how each blog-creating service handled four basic tasks: publishing text entries, or "posting" as it is called in blog land; adding photos; publishing links to other Web pages on our blogs; and providing privacy (if desired) online. We also took note of the overall style and formatting options provided on each site.

Our verdict: Microsoft's MSN Spaces did the best job of performing these tasks in a way that was organized and self-explanatory. Yahoo 360 was almost as easy, but it tries to tie in the use of too many other Yahoo services. Blogger.com has a long way to go until it becomes as easy to use as the others.

It's great to see the validation by both our users and reviewers like Walt Mossberg of the design choices we've made in attempting to bring blogging to a more widespread audience.

I'd like to thank all the folks who've been giving us great feedback; reviewers like Walt, various folks who leave comments in my space or Mike's or Scott's, the people who've added stuff to the MSN Spaces wiki, and the good people at work who send mail to the various Spaces mailing lists. You're feedback makes us better. Thanks.

A few months ago, Omar Shahine wrote about how various folks in our org came together to get the MSN Mobile Messaging feature to work. This feature allows people to have IM conversations with people using a cell phone via SMS using MSN Messenger. In his post When the work you do is architectural (MSN Mobile Messaging) he talks about the feature and how it was implemented on our various back ends. Some of his post is excerpted below  

So what to do? Enter MSN Messenger to SMS communications (we call this Enhanced mobile messaging). The feature we've been working on for the past year (or longer) was to allow a user of MSN Messenger on a PC to send a message to some one that is not signed into MSN Messenger but has an SMS enabled Mobile device AND to reply to that SMS message and have a real time chat (in otherwords, a two way conversation between MSN Messenger and Mobile phone using SMS as the wire protocol). This last part is important, but to understand it I need to explain one more thing.

For the past few years part of the scenario above has been available through what I will call a hack. Most phones that have SMS also have an email gateway that can take a message sent to a special email address and forward that message to the phone. For example, an email sent to <phone number>@mmode.com will forward that message via SMS to the <phone number> of an ATT Wireless subscriber. However, the user cannot reply to that email enabling a 2 way chat. Furthermore, it breaks the SMS user experience that mobile phone users are used to.

So, to fix this we set out to build all the necessary carrier infrastructure, SMS infrastructure, and build the technology and carrier relationships to ship the ability for users to have a two way conversation from MSN Messenger to a Mobile device that has nothing more than SMS capabilities (practically every singe phone on the planet). Not only that, but we support "Offline messages" so that if a Mobile phone device replies to an SMS from Messenger, and you have signed out of MSN Messenger, the next time you sign in the message will be delivered to you allowing you to continue the conversation.

I was reminded of this today because of his follow up post MSN Mobile Messaging for Cingular, which let me know that my girlfriend's cell phone carrier is now supported. Sweet.

Omar's original post has some interesting details on some of the issues they faced in bringing this feature to the market. This is an awesome feature and I'm definitely going to get a lot of use out of it.

So it looks like I'll be attending Gnomedex 5.0 next week. I had expected to sit it out but a chance to attend fell in my lap last week so I took the opportunity. The conference will be in walking distance from my apartment and will be all about blogging & RSS related topics so it is doubleplusgood that I'll get to go.

I exchanged some mail with Nick Bradbury and Chris Pirillo about being part of an aggregator developer get together during the conference so that should be fun too. I'm looking forward to meeting a bunch of folks who I've only exchanged mail with over the past few years.

I stumbled upon a blog post on Wil Wheaton's blog via Penny Arcade yesterday that I found interesting. It seems there was a recent threat of a strike by the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) on behalf of voice actors in video games which got them improved pay. This seems to have led to somewhat of a backlash from some video game developers. Wil writes

Since I wrote about voice actors the other day, I've been personally attacked, called names, and vilified all over the Internets, often by people whose work I respect and admire.
...
It seems like many developers are angry with SAG because SAG stood up for its members, which is what a union is supposed to do. It just doesn't make any sense to me that SAG is being viewed with such animosity, just for doing its job. Actors represent less than 3% of the total budget on games, so it's incredibly unlikely that if SAG were able to make some residual gains, it would even affect developers' pay. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that producers are going to tell developers that they can't afford to pay them, because actors are now taking up 4.5% or 5% of the budget.
...
I don't understand what developers gain by spending energy attacking SAG, when SAG is just doing what its membership expects it to do. As far as I can tell, voice actors and developers have the same ultimate goal, and I just don't get why developers are so angry with SAG for trying to reach that goal. It seems like a lot of developers and gamers are pissed at SAG because SAG has the ability to stand up to our employers and ask for better wages, and from an Art of War standpoint, that is an awfully huge waste of energy. It makes much more sense to me for developers to take that energy and those resources, point it at producers, and take the fight to them. Because, ultimately, getting angry at SAG, or me, or other working actors, isn't going to get developers better contracts or profit-sharing. All it's going to do is take focus away from the people who can make those things happen.

Given that video games seem to have the same hit-centric characteristics of movies and music I can see why there is the school of thought that expects developers to get a percentage of the take if it is a hit. I doubt the status quo will ever change without some organized effort on the part of video game developers.

The comments in response to Wil's post also contain some interesting viewpoints for and against his position. I was actually surprised that there was anything in his post to take offence at but people have a way of surprising me.

There's been a bunch of hubbub on certain blogs about MSN Spaces and some of the content filtering that happens on the site due to a recent Financial Times article entitled Microsoft bans 'democracy' for China web users. I've seen a lot of rhetoric about this topic and have avoided commenting on it since it is a sensitive topic that has evoked rather emotional and inflammatory responses from commenters including some Microsoft employees.

I will say two things though. First of all, the behavior of MSN Spaces isn't something that is tied to any recent ventures in the past month or two by MSN in China as the article purports. In December of last year Boing Boing ran a post entitled Chinese editions of MSN Spaces censor political terms which covers the behavior described in the Financial Times article.

The second is that the response to the initial feedback on the "censorship" on MSN Spaces made by Michael Connolly in his post Comments on Content Moderation is still valid. Specifically he wrote

There have been a lot of observations since we launched on how we moderate content on Spaces.   Just so there aren’t any misconceptions floating around, here is exactly what we do, and why.

One of our main goals for Spaces was to create a platform for people to share their thoughts and feelings with their friends and the outside world.  However, we wanted to make Spaces usable by not only the people who are blogging today, but also be approachable by the general internet user, who might not have heard of blogging previously, or been given an opportunity to try it out.

Unfortunately, whenever you create an open platform for people to say whatever they want, and open it up to the wide world (14 languages, in 26 different markets), there is always a handful of people who spoil the party, and post a bunch of inappropriate (and in some cases illegal) stuff. And to make matters worse, what exactly is deemed “appropriate” or not is very subjective, not only from person to person, but from country to country
...
We block a set of specific words from being used in 3 areas: the url you select, the title of your Space, and the title of your blog entry. These three fields are reused and displayed in a variety of areas, like search results, so we thought it would be a little thing we could do to cut down on the obvious cases that would most easily offend.

MC made his post in December of last year and this is still the state of affairs today. I don't know if any official statement will be made in response to the article but I did think it would add some perspective to the various discussions to actually get the facts and as opposed to hearsay.

Quite frankly I've been saddened see the kind of language and rhetoric used in posts like Tim Bray's Microsoft and China to describe the above situation. We have lots of Chinese users who use MSN Spaces to share their lives with friends, family and the rest of the online world. Read their blogs, view their photos and try to see things from their eyes instead of letting the rhetoric blind you to reality.

John Montgomery has a post entitled I’m Missing Something Here where he expresses similar sentiments to those expressed by Charles Fitzgerald in the C|Net article Will AJAX help Google Clean Up? on the increased hype around using DHTML and server callbacks (aka AJAX) for building web sites. Both senior Microsoft developer evangelists seemed to be saying "AJAX sucks, use .NET instead". Specifically

John Montgomery: "I’m not sure if AJAX is an amazing transformational technology, or simply the pinnacle of what you can do with Javascript. Nor am I sure that I wouldn’t have been better off writing a ClickOnce Windows Forms app for most of what I was doing."

Charles Fitzgerald: "It's a little depressing that developers are just now wrapping their heads around these things we shipped in the late 20th century. But XAML is in a whole other class. This other stuff is very kludgy, very hard to debug. We've seen some pretty impressive hacks, but if you look at what XAML starts to solve, it's a major, major step up."

The words attributed to Charles Fitzgerald are taken from a news article so they shouldn't be taken as verbatim statements though I assume that C|Net captured his sentiments accurately.

What the Microsoft evangelists are forgetting is that the Web is about reach. AJAX is about attempting to build rich internet applications while preserving the reach and zero deployment costs of the Web. It smacks of completely not understanding the problem space to suggest that sites like http://maps.google.com or http://www.start.com/myw3b should be using Winforms or XAML/Avalon instead of exploring AJAX.

I suspect it is a weird sort of tunnel vision. Spending so much time talking to developers building intranet applications makes some people believe that this is the same as web development. It isn't.

Shelley Powers has a few posts that are critical of Microsoft's InfoCard project entitled You Want We Should What? and What do you want from Digital Identity. I'm not really up to speed on all the digital identity and InfoCard discussion you can find in places like Kim Cameron's blog mainly because it bores me to tears. However one thing that struck me when reading Shelley's posts and then reading a few entries from Kim's blog is that it seemed they both were expecting different people to use the InfoCard technology.

I've found it hard to tell whether the identity folks at Microsoft expect InfoCard to mainly be used by Enterprises who need to identify people who communicate across identity domains (e.g. the way Office Communicator is used to communicate with people within an enterprise or folks using Yahoo!, MSN or AOL instant messaging tools) or whether they expect it to be used as some sort of federated single sign on system for various websites. Reading the Microsoft's Vision for an Identity Metasystem whitepaper it seems InfoCard and the "Identity Metasystem" are meant to do this and much more. My spider sense tends to tingle when I see v1 technologies that aim to solve such diverse problems in a broad sweep.

The end of the whitepaper states Passport and MSN plan to implement support for the identity metasystem as an online identity provider for MSN and its partners. Interesting, I may have to start digging into this space since it will eventually impact my day job. 

DHTML Lemmings^TM is a faithful recreation of the classic computer game, Lemmings. I remember having lots of fun playing this on my Amiga over a decade ago. This was one of the most innovative games of the '90s.

Too bad clever puzzlers like Lemmings don't seem to be made anymore.

The newest version of the MSN Search Toolbar adds tabbed browsing to Internet Explorer. You can check out a screenshot if you're curious to see what its like. Denise from the MSN Search Toolbar team blogged about it in her post Tabbed browsing is here! where she wrote

Tabbed browsing not only makes online shopping easier (and my wallet more broke), it also drastically improves my web search experience! Have you ever gotten annoyed with hitting the back button repeatedly to get back to the original search results?  MSN Search Toolbar gives you the option to open MSN Search results in new background tabs. This is a HUGE time saver because it lets you keep the search results on one tab while links that you click open in the background.

Best of all, Tabbed Browsing with MSN Search Toolbar works in Internet Explorer 5.01 or above! IE7 will also offer tabs but in the meantime this is a great option.

I think it's way cool that the MSN Search Toolbar team has added this functionality to IE. First Trixie and Turnabout, and now tabbed browsing added via the MSN Search Toolbar. It definitely goes to show exactly how extensible IE is as a platform. Of course, I still am interested in seeing what Dean and his merry band have planned for IE7.

About a year ago, the folks at Sun Microsystems came up with a bunch of benchmarks that showed that XML parsing in Java was much faster than on the .NET Framework. On the XML team at Microsoft we took this as a challenge to do much better in the next version of the .NET Framework. To see how much we improved, you can check out A comparison of XML performance on .NET 2.0 Beta2, .NET 1.1, and Sun Java 1.5 Platforms which is available on MSDN.

In the three test cases, Java 1.5 XML APIs are faster than those in the .NET Framework v1.1 both of which are about half as fast as the XML APIs in .NET Framework v2.0. The source code for the various tests is available so individuals can confirm the results for themselves on their own configurations. 

A lot of the improvements in XML parsing on the .NET Framework are due to the excellent work of Helena Kupkova. She is also the author of the excellent XmlBookMarkReader. Great stuff.

For the XML web services geeks there is also a similar comparison of XML Web Services Performance for .NET 2.0 Beta2, .NET 1.1, Sun JWSDP 1.5 and IBM WebSphere 6.0.