3 ms·

I agree with the premise that the amp framework (or any such framework) should be separate from being forced to work with only a specific set of tools, etc. Ho

by mxuribe 10y ago

I agree with the premise that the amp framework (or any such framework) should be separate from being forced to work with only a specific set of tools, etc. However, it seems to me that what the author is proposing is really just more/better adherence to html/web specs...no? Or perhaps, a few performance-related tweaks to existing html/web specs...I mean, if we all (that is web producers, website managers, content authors, etc.) simply produce sites that adhere more to already established web standards (a la html5, xhtml, etc.), AND have browser makers be more strict in their interpretations of the established html/web specs, then we'd be almost all the way there...no? I'm by no means stating that this is easy, just stating that the author might be re-inventing a wheel that simply could use some optimization.

noir_lord 10y ago
> However, it seems to me that what the author is proposing is really just more/better adherence to html/web specs...no? Pretty much but buzzwords/PR work, "CPP Compliant" vs "We build stuff properly (for a given value of properly)"
- deno 10y ago
  No, there are terrible antipatterns that browsers enable to not break compatibility. A strict performance sensitive mode for web platform (HTML/CSS/JS) is long overdue. AMP is a pretty great solution, and the only issue with it has been the proprietary feeling. The browser support is the cherry on top. The argument that people will just use best practices out of sheer goodwill or even just basic competence has been thoroughly debunked. No one optimizes for performance if they are not penalized.
cbr 10y ago
Right now there are a lot of things that specs let you do that will make your page slow, like running a lot of js in the scroll event handler, or just including too much js overall. If you read the current proposal [1] the idea is that the site could make promises not to do various kinds of slow things, and the browser could enforce that. [1] http://wicg.github.io/ContentPerformancePolicy/ http://wicg.github.io/ContentPerformancePolicy/

by mxuribe 10y ago

noir_lord 10y ago

> However, it seems to me that what the author is proposing is really just more/better adherence to html/web specs...no? Pretty much but buzzwords/PR work, "CPP Compliant" vs "We build stuff properly (for a given value of properly)"

deno 10y ago
No, there are terrible antipatterns that browsers enable to not break compatibility. A strict performance sensitive mode for web platform (HTML/CSS/JS) is long overdue. AMP is a pretty great solution, and the only issue with it has been the proprietary feeling. The browser support is the cherry on top. The argument that people will just use best practices out of sheer goodwill or even just basic competence has been thoroughly debunked. No one optimizes for performance if they are not penalized.

cbr 10y ago

Right now there are a lot of things that specs let you do that will make your page slow, like running a lot of js in the scroll event handler, or just including too much js overall. If you read the current proposal [1] the idea is that the site could make promises not to do various kinds of slow things, and the browser could enforce that. [1] http://wicg.github.io/ContentPerformancePolicy/ http://wicg.github.io/ContentPerformancePolicy/