2 ms·

But the common argument is nonsensical. Yes of course sites could make non-abusive, readable content. But they don't. The non-stickiness of the web, coupled wit

But the common argument is nonsensical. Yes of course sites could make non-abusive, readable content. But they don't. The non-stickiness of the web, coupled with a low attention span of users, has yielded a sort of tragedy of the commons. AMP is a standard to say "this can't do that". We should have an HTMLite of the sort like AMP. Like how Google Gears became a variety of accepted web standards, it should build into something rather than the nonsensical claim that it does nothing.

matthewmacleod 9y ago
That’s fine. I agree; “HTML-lite” is fine, and most of AMP is even an acceptable implementation of that concept. But in practice, the way AMP is used has fundamental problems. Like the fact that content is hosted by a third party, or that links are broken, or that scrolling is wrecked. I like the speed of AMP; the implementation is catastrophic and I wish dearly that I could disable its appearance in Google search results.
- akras14 9y ago
  +1 would love to see HTML light, and that's why I initially assumed AMP to be. Edit: Now that I think about it, Twitter does try to use AMP as HTML light, since they don't use the cache. Yet I think AMP is does not make a great HTML light, likely because it has to support the cache use case.
- hdhzy 9y ago
  > ... I wish dearly that I could disable its appearance in Google search results. You can if you use https://encrypted.google.com https://encrypted.google.com