3 ms·
I'm much happier to see this. My concern with AMP has always been that it removes incentives for browsers to get faster, because if most of the content is using
by pcwalton 10y ago
I'm much happier to see this. My concern with AMP has always been that it removes incentives for browsers to get faster, because if most of the content is using AMP there's no point in optimizing important things. Having a multi-vendor solution gives us non-Chrome browser vendors a voice at the table.
(To give a concrete example, why bother with optimizing layout-affecting animations to run off the main thread if AMP just forbids them? Such animations are useful, precisely because they affect layout; we aren't doing Web authors any favors by forbidding them instead of just making them fast.)
- hilop 10y agoAMP is for news pages, stuff is one page away from Search. Browsers still work to optimize the overall experience for web apps and full sites.
- pcwalton 10y ago1. Animations have their place on news sites. 2. I'm not just talking about animations: things like parallel layout are also useful for static sites.