6 ms·

AMP for email is targeting a completely different topic than the issues listed here and in the article. And i am shocked everybody is simply not seeing them wit

by tpetry 7y ago

AMP for email is targeting a completely different topic than the issues listed here and in the article. And i am shocked everybody is simply not seeing them with their amp4web hate. Amp for email is completely different than amp for web and is a very good solution: 1. Coding emails is really really hard. Every client is rendering emails differently, and Outlook is a beast with every version rendering differently. Amp for email is standardizing a subset of email and css every client should support so email building will be easier. 2. Email is completely different than the web. You cant do more than basic html like displaying text and pictures. Embedding videos? Slideshows for products? Interactivity like forms? Display realtime information? EVERYTHING IS NOT POSSIBLE! But it will be with amp4email. You will get features in emails compared to the web so they will get usefully again. And i am afraid nobody is seeing this and only hating amp4web‘s hiding if the real urls etc.

ori_b 7y ago
> You cant do more than basic html like displaying text and pictures. Embedding videos? Slideshows for products? Interactivity like forms? Display realtime information? EVERYTHING IS NOT POSSIBLE! But it will be with amp4email. Alright, you've convinced me: AMP for email needs to be killed.
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
  > Embedding videos? Let me open this email... oh noes, it's autoplay video. > Slideshows for products? Yes, more marketing garbage! > Interactivity like forms? Your password is about to expire, change it below or some garbage that will only make shit more insecure. > Display realtime information Blow me.
  - hexo 7y ago
    Exactly. Couldn't have been said better. Kill AMP completely and don't even think about touching email with that.
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
amp4email is far worse and more dangerous than amp4web, and that's why privacy respecting email services are so opposed to it. Tutanota here, and FastMail who posted about it when it was first announced. AMP isn't a subset of HTML, it's it's own proprietary fork of HTML. It's not saying an img tag is okay, it's tell you to use an amp-img tag.
- SquareWheel 7y ago
  >AMP isn't a subset of HTML, it's it's own proprietary fork of HTML. This is another misunderstanding. HTML allows custom tags. This is built into the spec. AMP is plain and regular, standards-compliant HTML.
  - callahad 7y ago
    It is impossible to use AMP as a standalone Custom Element library and still validate as AMP. Valid AMP is required to dynamically load the library from Google's unversioned CDN.
    - SquareWheel 7y ago
      That's true. But it's still valid HTML. It's most definitely not a fork of anything. >unversioned CDN Isn't the filename versioned (v0.js)?
      - callahad 7y ago
        Not really. The project leaders have explicitly stated that the content of the script at that URL is subject to change at any time, and thus users are prohibited from locking it to an audited, known version with an SRI hash.
        SquareWheel 7y ago
        I see. Thanks for the clarification. That is pretty poor practice. I guess v0 might imply "beta" and thus not have stable API naming yet. But still, it's clearly being used in production at this point.
josteink 7y ago
> Email is completely different than the web. You cant do more than basic html like displaying text and pictures. Embedding videos? Slideshows for products? Interactivity like forms? Display realtime information? EVERYTHING IS NOT POSSIBLE! But it will be with amp4email. This alone is the reason I oppose AMP email. I want email to be a simple, static text-based communication platform. None of that full HTML application-stack bullshit.
- cromwellian 7y ago
  Email already has HTML in it and has for decades, hell, there were startups dedicated to it like Zaplets et al. AMP doesn't enable HTML email, it was already enabled by Outlook 97.
  - josteink 7y ago
    But not HTML applications. JavaScript is banned. Dynamic content is banned. This is good. We should aim to keep it this way.
    - cromwellian 7y ago
      Actually, you're wrong. Zaplets made this work somehow, and were funded to the tune of $90+ million in VC money. Perhaps they just used an iframe or <applet>, but never the less, Zaplets offered interactive HTML forms inside of mail that worked in Outlook. (https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0612/6514218a.html#224241f857dc https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0612/6514218a.html#224241...) AMP Email is largely following what the Outlook 97 client was capable of. There's no apriori reason why a federated messaging system needs to be non-interactive. It's possible to support both immutability and dynamism. You're making assertions that something should be a certain way without actually justifying it. You could at least provide some formal justification, like you want Email to be an immutable ledger or something. But the idea that Email can't evolve and change and should stay exactly the way it was, pretty much assures its death in the dust bin of history, the same way we lost USENET, LISTSERV, or even XMPP. Old standards didn't evolve quickly, users wanted silly features while neckbeards said don't violate purity of my abstraction. And today, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, WeChat, iMessage, et al, are the predominant messaging platforms, and email is for spam, receipts, and grand parents.

by tpetry 7y ago

ori_b 7y ago

> You cant do more than basic html like displaying text and pictures. Embedding videos? Slideshows for products? Interactivity like forms? Display realtime information? EVERYTHING IS NOT POSSIBLE! But it will be with amp4email. Alright, you've convinced me: AMP for email needs to be killed.

WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
> Embedding videos? Let me open this email... oh noes, it's autoplay video. > Slideshows for products? Yes, more marketing garbage! > Interactivity like forms? Your password is about to expire, change it below or some garbage that will only make shit more insecure. > Display realtime information Blow me.
- hexo 7y ago
  Exactly. Couldn't have been said better. Kill AMP completely and don't even think about touching email with that.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago

amp4email is far worse and more dangerous than amp4web, and that's why privacy respecting email services are so opposed to it. Tutanota here, and FastMail who posted about it when it was first announced. AMP isn't a subset of HTML, it's it's own proprietary fork of HTML. It's not saying an img tag is okay, it's tell you to use an amp-img tag.

SquareWheel 7y ago
>AMP isn't a subset of HTML, it's it's own proprietary fork of HTML. This is another misunderstanding. HTML allows custom tags. This is built into the spec. AMP is plain and regular, standards-compliant HTML.
- callahad 7y ago
  It is impossible to use AMP as a standalone Custom Element library and still validate as AMP. Valid AMP is required to dynamically load the library from Google's unversioned CDN.
  - SquareWheel 7y ago
    That's true. But it's still valid HTML. It's most definitely not a fork of anything. >unversioned CDN Isn't the filename versioned (v0.js)?
    - callahad 7y ago
      Not really. The project leaders have explicitly stated that the content of the script at that URL is subject to change at any time, and thus users are prohibited from locking it to an audited, known version with an SRI hash.
      - SquareWheel 7y ago
        I see. Thanks for the clarification. That is pretty poor practice. I guess v0 might imply "beta" and thus not have stable API naming yet. But still, it's clearly being used in production at this point.

josteink 7y ago

> Email is completely different than the web. You cant do more than basic html like displaying text and pictures. Embedding videos? Slideshows for products? Interactivity like forms? Display realtime information? EVERYTHING IS NOT POSSIBLE! But it will be with amp4email. This alone is the reason I oppose AMP email. I want email to be a simple, static text-based communication platform. None of that full HTML application-stack bullshit.

cromwellian 7y ago
Email already has HTML in it and has for decades, hell, there were startups dedicated to it like Zaplets et al. AMP doesn't enable HTML email, it was already enabled by Outlook 97.
- josteink 7y ago
  But not HTML applications. JavaScript is banned. Dynamic content is banned. This is good. We should aim to keep it this way.
  - cromwellian 7y ago
    Actually, you're wrong. Zaplets made this work somehow, and were funded to the tune of $90+ million in VC money. Perhaps they just used an iframe or <applet>, but never the less, Zaplets offered interactive HTML forms inside of mail that worked in Outlook. (https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0612/6514218a.html#224241f857dc https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0612/6514218a.html#224241...) AMP Email is largely following what the Outlook 97 client was capable of. There's no apriori reason why a federated messaging system needs to be non-interactive. It's possible to support both immutability and dynamism. You're making assertions that something should be a certain way without actually justifying it. You could at least provide some formal justification, like you want Email to be an immutable ledger or something. But the idea that Email can't evolve and change and should stay exactly the way it was, pretty much assures its death in the dust bin of history, the same way we lost USENET, LISTSERV, or even XMPP. Old standards didn't evolve quickly, users wanted silly features while neckbeards said don't violate purity of my abstraction. And today, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, WeChat, iMessage, et al, are the predominant messaging platforms, and email is for spam, receipts, and grand parents.