3 ms·

Unless you're using Google Chrome, Google does not and can not control "the way [your] browser handles results served from their service". That's completely up

Unless you're using Google Chrome, Google does not and can not control "the way [your] browser handles results served from their service". That's completely up to your browser to decide (and by extension, you, by means of which browser you decide to use). If you're using Firefox, for example, this change to the URL bar will only happen if Mozilla decides to implement the web package standard, after evaluating it and deciding its reasonable to display the URL of the original page for pages loaded using that standard. > DuckDuckGo wouldn't get the same benefit from adopting AMP because they don't have loads of internet infrastructure to play with. That may be true in the sense that DuckDuckGo can't deploy a global CDN as easily, since Google has more resources than them, but you could make the same case against almost any new web technology. For example, you could argue DuckDuckGo wouldn't make as effective use of HTTP/2 as Google, since Google can afford to rewrite their applications to take full advantage of HTTP/2 server push much more quickly than DDG can. That's not a very good argument against HTTP/2 though IMO.

Ajedi32 9y ago
I will add though that despite what it may sound like, I'm still not entirely sold on AMP myself. My main issue with it is that it the spec still contains [this line][1]: > AMP HTML documents MUST > [...] > * contain a <script async src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"></script> https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"></script> tag inside their head tag The actual specification requiring JavaScript to be loaded into your page from any one particular server is unacceptable IMO. Hopefully this is fixed in future updates to the spec. My other problem with it is much more minor; I just don't like the idea of serving a "special" version of my site just for mobile. I'm very much a fan of responsive design, and I'd prefer to just serve one version of my site that looks and works great no matter what device or internet connection you're viewing it with. [1]: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/spec#scrpt https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/spec#scrpt

Ajedi32 9y ago

I will add though that despite what it may sound like, I'm still not entirely sold on AMP myself. My main issue with it is that it the spec still contains [this line][1]: > AMP HTML documents MUST > [...] > * contain a <script async src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"></script> https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"></script> tag inside their head tag The actual specification requiring JavaScript to be loaded into your page from any one particular server is unacceptable IMO. Hopefully this is fixed in future updates to the spec. My other problem with it is much more minor; I just don't like the idea of serving a "special" version of my site just for mobile. I'm very much a fan of responsive design, and I'd prefer to just serve one version of my site that looks and works great no matter what device or internet connection you're viewing it with. [1]: https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/spec#scrpt https://www.ampproject.org/docs/reference/spec#scrpt