4 ms·
This was first published last February, and the top comment was from a Googler who's involved with the AMP project: > Love this. Not sure by coincidence, but t
by xd1936 10y ago
This was first published last February, and the top comment was from a Googler who's involved with the AMP project:
> Love this. Not sure by coincidence, but the AMP team has been playing around with the same thing under literally the same name. We should meet up some time and discuss details.
Not sure it would be an alternative, but rather a complementary thing.
I wonder what ever came of that.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- cbr 10y agoThe spec has been moving along: http://wicg.github.io/ContentPerformancePolicy/ http://wicg.github.io/ContentPerformancePolicy/
- yoavweiss_ 10y agoThe spec has been split into smaller pieces. The first one that made the most progress is https://wicg.github.io/feature-policy/ https://wicg.github.io/feature-policy/
- Ph0X 10y agoCorrect me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the content maker get to decide if they in fact do want all the AMP benefits or not? If I remember correctly you can choose to disable the whole AMP cache google link, and only use the AMP optimizations. Secondly, He goes on for a few paragraph at the start about how anyone can do this, but that's not so true is it? The whole point of the AMP redirect is that it's on Google cache servers, and unless you have a lot of money, that ain't gonna be cheap. So at the end of the day, the last part is optional, and it's basically you paying for the cache with allowing them to use their domain (will all ads and traffic stats still sent to you).
- notatoad 10y agoomitting the amp cache google link basically makes it not AMP though - you can still follow the rules but it's just called "writing clean and minimal html" at that point.