3 ms·
>A hypocrite (Gruber, as evidenced in another thread) calls the AMP team hacks who do terrible work I must have missed this. When did Gruber call the AMP team
by amazingman 9y ago
>A hypocrite (Gruber, as evidenced in another thread) calls the AMP team hacks who do terrible work
I must have missed this. When did Gruber call the AMP team hacks?
> Turns out their "terrible work" is actually Apple's bug and the AMP team points this out both to Apple and to Gruber.
This is flat out disingenuous, unless you're talking about something other than the originally submitted DF article. There were multiple examples of why Gruber thinks AMP sucks. Are you claiming that all of them are "Apple's bug"?
- imron 9y ago> When did Gruber call the AMP team hacks? The link of this thread was originally [0]. Although he didn't use the word 'hack' himself, Gruber said: "Google has no respect for the platform. If I had my way, Mobile Safari would refuse to render AMP pages. It’s a deliberate effort by Google to break the open web." So he sees them as intentionally sabotaging things. 0: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/05/20/gilbertson-amp https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/05/20/gilbertson-amp
- amazingman 9y agoIndeed, that's in alignment with what I had seen. It seems obvious at least to me that the actual character of Gruber's statements and @julianmarq's portrayal of those statements do not agree.
- virgilp 9y ago> Are you claiming that all of them are "Apple's bug"? Let's see: - find in page: yup, Webkit bug (Google/Chrome uses Blink). - scrolling behaviour: yup, Safari bug. Anything else that I missed?
- MBCook 9y agoIt was an intentional decision, not a bug: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14386292 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14386292
- virgilp 9y ago> This is semi-accidental. I.e., "not design decision".
- amazingman 9y agoAnd how would you characterize Google's decision to ship it in this state, knowing that the behavior was broken in iOS Safari?