4 ms·

SVGs are displayed whether or not they're hosted on Adobe's servers. What other servers are serving AMP pages, (edit: and would benefit from this "cached from

SVGs are displayed whether or not they're hosted on Adobe's servers. What other servers are serving AMP pages, (edit: and would benefit from this "cached from <other site>" URL bar display logic) other than Google's news product?

detaro 10y ago
All the publishers Google copies the AMP from? Google could just redirect mobile users to that if they wanted, as can every other site linking to a page. If they then also got rid of the requirement of loading the AMP JS from a CDN Google runs, they'd actually have something resembling an open standard...
- msbarnett 10y ago
  > All the publishers Google copies the AMP from? But all of those URLs display correctly. We're talking about having browsers add special-case logic in which some URLs on one particular special domain (news.google.com) belonging to one private company (Google) are treated and displayed differently than everything else on the internet. > If they then also got rid of the requirement of loading the AMP JS from a CDN Google runs, they'd actually have something resembling an open standard Sure, if this turned into an actual Open standard, and we were talking about extending browser display logic to any server on the internet that served an AMP page belonging to some other site, that would make sense. But having browsers bless one company's subdomain with special rules that apply only to it is about as anti-open web as you can get.
  - detaro 10y ago
    > But having browsers bless one company's subdomain with special rules that apply only to it is about as anti-open web as you can get. I totally agree with you on that. They could easily get rid of their cache domain for serving AMP, or people could build browser extensions and other projects avoiding it while still using AMP, but only because all the publishers behind it already serve AMP if you ask for it. Which is why I made the point that it is not just Google serving it, which I clearly should have explained better.

detaro 10y ago

All the publishers Google copies the AMP from? Google could just redirect mobile users to that if they wanted, as can every other site linking to a page. If they then also got rid of the requirement of loading the AMP JS from a CDN Google runs, they'd actually have something resembling an open standard...

msbarnett 10y ago
> All the publishers Google copies the AMP from? But all of those URLs display correctly. We're talking about having browsers add special-case logic in which some URLs on one particular special domain (news.google.com) belonging to one private company (Google) are treated and displayed differently than everything else on the internet. > If they then also got rid of the requirement of loading the AMP JS from a CDN Google runs, they'd actually have something resembling an open standard Sure, if this turned into an actual Open standard, and we were talking about extending browser display logic to any server on the internet that served an AMP page belonging to some other site, that would make sense. But having browsers bless one company's subdomain with special rules that apply only to it is about as anti-open web as you can get.
- detaro 10y ago
  > But having browsers bless one company's subdomain with special rules that apply only to it is about as anti-open web as you can get. I totally agree with you on that. They could easily get rid of their cache domain for serving AMP, or people could build browser extensions and other projects avoiding it while still using AMP, but only because all the publishers behind it already serve AMP if you ask for it. Which is why I made the point that it is not just Google serving it, which I clearly should have explained better.