I already have an HTML spec; it's called HTML. I already have a javascript spec; it's called ECMAscript. (still wish I could back in time and stop whatever foo

I already have an HTML spec; it's called HTML. I already have a javascript spec; it's called ECMAscript. (still wish I could back in time and stop whatever fool decided to shove "java" into the name) > Putting aside the Google bits, is there a case against building within the AMP HTML and JS spec? Or is the case against all down to Google's ownership of the project? It's all down to how Google treats AMP pages in their SERPs. They only feature the ones in the Google cache. Imagine if Google put sites hosted at GCE on the first page of results, and moved any site hosted by AWS or Azure to the 2nd page of results. Think anyone would get mad about that? Why should it be remotely OK for them to use AMP to do the same thing?