5 ms·
Correct, it's essentially the same as it is now, but easier as you don't have to worry about removing the "google.com/amp" prefix.
by zackbloom 7y ago
Correct, it's essentially the same as it is now, but easier as you don't have to worry about removing the "google.com/amp" prefix.
- JohnFen 7y agoOK, thanks.
- toomuchtodo 7y agoI assume this means I’ll be able to use a browser extension to catch AMP requests and convert those requests into traditional requests? Not making an AMP judgement in this comment, just asking if the technical capability exists.
- tyingq 7y agoI'd be curious how an extension would know it's an AMP page in this new situation. Is there some new extension API or response property exposed?
- om2 7y agoWill this load an uncached copy of the AMP version, or the canonical URL as specified by `<link rel=canonical>`?
- zackbloom 7y agoThat is up to the website, some elect to use separate URLs for their AMP content, others serve a different version based on the requestor, others might be AMP-native and not have another incarnation.
- om2 7y agoHow is it up to the website? Can they put a URL in their signed package for the browser to display that won't load the same content if you copy it and paste it into a new location field?