3 ms·

I'm not sure what "enable amp experience with the html6 web" means, but surely you like non-amp pages too, particularly the ones well designed and lightweight c

I'm not sure what "enable amp experience with the html6 web" means, but surely you like non-amp pages too, particularly the ones well designed and lightweight code. I'm just hearing about amp tonight and trying to understand what it is. Why are people saying it ruins the URL? Does it change the website address to a google URL? Why are people criticising it saying "hosted not cached"? I gather the caching works similar to Akamai, with a configurable TTL on file types for the origin server?

recursive 9y ago
I also like the fact that I know in advance that an AMP page will be fast. Non-AMP is a mixed bag, but mostly slow and crappy.
kemayo 9y ago
If you do a search on Google, and click on an AMP result you'll find yourself at a URL like: https://www.google.com/amp/wccftech.com/wikipedia-updated-its-app-with-full-ios-11-support-for-the-latest-iphone-and-ipads/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/wccftech.com/wikipedia-updated-it... This is because the way Google gets those lightning-fast results for AMP pages is to rehost them onto their own server and background-load them while you're viewing the search page. It's even a reasonable position -- they want to do the background-loading safely, so having known-good content helps them. People are calling this rehosting because, well, your content is hosted on Google's servers, in a very visible way to anyone who sees the URL. If you share it, that's the URL that goes to other people rather than the canonical one. That said, non-Google browser makers have been doing things to mitigate this. iOS Safari notices when you're trying to share an AMP URL and figures out the canonical one for you to share instead. (I hear Firefox does this, too, on Android as well.) It's a bit silly that the major browsers are all adding in Google-AMP-specific hacks like this, though.
- SquareWheel 9y ago
  >It's a bit silly that the major browsers are all adding in Google-AMP-specific hacks like this, though. Isn't copying the canonical URL the correct behavior? I've just checked and the AMP page you linked has the correct canonical tag set.
  - kemayo 9y ago
    There's a debate to be had on that point, I guess. The normal behavior of "share sends the precise page I am currently viewing" has the advantage that you know what you're sending, whereas trusting the website's rel="canonical" opens up some potential confusion. (And, I guess, sneaky attack vectors, though someone who wanted to exploit that could do so easily enough via JS redirects on non-referer visits anyway.) The Google Amp people certainly think that's the right way to do it, as we can see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15085159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15085159 EDIT: Actually, I'm seeing some claims that iOS Safari is just generically doing share-is-rel-canonical now. I haven't tested it personally, but...
    - SquareWheel 9y ago
      I'd say the advantage of share buttons using the proper canonical tag is it strips away user-customizations, tracking information (utms), and other info. So for instance if a user clicks the "comments" link on a blog post, it won't then skip the article when people view it. Though I can also see downsides. For instance you might click on a specific version of a product on an ecommerce site. If you share it and say "I love this version!", that information could be lost in the process.
      - kemayo 9y ago
        I admit, most of my hesitations are in the realm of my not trusting websites to do it properly. :D
- fooker 9y ago
  HTTP's canonical URL field is not a Google-AMP-specific hack.

recursive 9y ago

I also like the fact that I know in advance that an AMP page will be fast. Non-AMP is a mixed bag, but mostly slow and crappy.

kemayo 9y ago

If you do a search on Google, and click on an AMP result you'll find yourself at a URL like: https://www.google.com/amp/wccftech.com/wikipedia-updated-its-app-with-full-ios-11-support-for-the-latest-iphone-and-ipads/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/wccftech.com/wikipedia-updated-it... This is because the way Google gets those lightning-fast results for AMP pages is to rehost them onto their own server and background-load them while you're viewing the search page. It's even a reasonable position -- they want to do the background-loading safely, so having known-good content helps them. People are calling this rehosting because, well, your content is hosted on Google's servers, in a very visible way to anyone who sees the URL. If you share it, that's the URL that goes to other people rather than the canonical one. That said, non-Google browser makers have been doing things to mitigate this. iOS Safari notices when you're trying to share an AMP URL and figures out the canonical one for you to share instead. (I hear Firefox does this, too, on Android as well.) It's a bit silly that the major browsers are all adding in Google-AMP-specific hacks like this, though.

SquareWheel 9y ago
>It's a bit silly that the major browsers are all adding in Google-AMP-specific hacks like this, though. Isn't copying the canonical URL the correct behavior? I've just checked and the AMP page you linked has the correct canonical tag set.
- kemayo 9y ago
  There's a debate to be had on that point, I guess. The normal behavior of "share sends the precise page I am currently viewing" has the advantage that you know what you're sending, whereas trusting the website's rel="canonical" opens up some potential confusion. (And, I guess, sneaky attack vectors, though someone who wanted to exploit that could do so easily enough via JS redirects on non-referer visits anyway.) The Google Amp people certainly think that's the right way to do it, as we can see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15085159 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15085159 EDIT: Actually, I'm seeing some claims that iOS Safari is just generically doing share-is-rel-canonical now. I haven't tested it personally, but...
  - SquareWheel 9y ago
    I'd say the advantage of share buttons using the proper canonical tag is it strips away user-customizations, tracking information (utms), and other info. So for instance if a user clicks the "comments" link on a blog post, it won't then skip the article when people view it. Though I can also see downsides. For instance you might click on a specific version of a product on an ecommerce site. If you share it and say "I love this version!", that information could be lost in the process.
    - kemayo 9y ago
      I admit, most of my hesitations are in the realm of my not trusting websites to do it properly. :D
fooker 9y ago
HTTP's canonical URL field is not a Google-AMP-specific hack.