3 ms·

The website owner has added markup to a document that states: "Hey useragent, if you understand this markup, please send mobile users to this other URL that I

The website owner has added markup to a document that states: "Hey useragent, if you understand this markup, please send mobile users to this other URL that I have provided." Twitter then respects the website owner's markup request. If the markup was "here's a mobile optimized page", we wouldn't get this kind of strong reaction in HN. If the markup was "here's a the language X variant of the document", we wouldn't get this kind of reaction in HN.

akras14 9y ago
May be you are right, I'll have to meditate on that one. Edit: It's a complicated situation. Google offers a great carrot/stick to get people to adopt AMP. Publishers adopt it. Other platforms start using it. A lot of users like this format. Some users hate it and the idea of it. As I've mentioned before, I do think that Twitter was trying to do the right thing for their users given the situation we are in. It would be nice to have "request Desktop version" option for AMP, but not sure if it's too much to ask.
- gregable 9y ago
  If the publisher provides both AMP and non-AMP versions of a document, it is possible to write a browser extension that will redirect to the non-AMP URL when provided. You would want to look for <html amp> to detect this case, and then <link rel=canonical> to determine the possible non-AMP URL. If that URL differs from the current URL, redirect to it. If you personally want a per-user option here to override the publisher, this seems like the way to go, but there is some similarity to ad-blocking here.
  - akras14 9y ago
    Yes, except it's not so easy to do in Safari on iOS.
wtallis 9y ago
> Twitter then respects the website owner's markup request. Since when is Twitter the user agent?
- gregable 9y ago
  Replace 'user agent' with crawler if you'd like.
  - wtallis 9y ago
    Twitter isn't a crawler, either. They have no business changing the target of links that their users tweet.

akras14 9y ago

May be you are right, I'll have to meditate on that one. Edit: It's a complicated situation. Google offers a great carrot/stick to get people to adopt AMP. Publishers adopt it. Other platforms start using it. A lot of users like this format. Some users hate it and the idea of it. As I've mentioned before, I do think that Twitter was trying to do the right thing for their users given the situation we are in. It would be nice to have "request Desktop version" option for AMP, but not sure if it's too much to ask.

gregable 9y ago
If the publisher provides both AMP and non-AMP versions of a document, it is possible to write a browser extension that will redirect to the non-AMP URL when provided. You would want to look for <html amp> to detect this case, and then <link rel=canonical> to determine the possible non-AMP URL. If that URL differs from the current URL, redirect to it. If you personally want a per-user option here to override the publisher, this seems like the way to go, but there is some similarity to ad-blocking here.
- akras14 9y ago
  Yes, except it's not so easy to do in Safari on iOS.

wtallis 9y ago

> Twitter then respects the website owner's markup request. Since when is Twitter the user agent?

gregable 9y ago
Replace 'user agent' with crawler if you'd like.
- wtallis 9y ago
  Twitter isn't a crawler, either. They have no business changing the target of links that their users tweet.