4 ms·
> Unfortunately Google don't seem to want to encourage plain HTML documents (instead the insane AMP shit). AMP is just plain HTML documents [0]. The only diffe
by gravypod 7y ago
> Unfortunately Google don't seem to want to encourage plain HTML documents (instead the insane AMP shit).
AMP is just plain HTML documents [0]. The only difference between an amp page and a standard HTML page are the following:
1. It includes the amp javascript library: `<script async src="https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"></script>` https://cdn.ampproject.org/v0.js"></script>`
2. It contains amp within: `<html amp lang="en">`
3. It must contain: `<!doctype html>`, has a `<body>`, a `<head>` and specify `<meta charset="utf-8">`.
4. Contains a reactive viewport meta: `<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,minimum-scale=1">`
I don't think any of these make an amp page "not html".
[0] - https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/start/create/basic_markup/?format=websites https://amp.dev/documentation/guides-and-tutorials/start/cre...
- paulddraper 7y ago5. It's MITM'd by Google's servers. --- I don't know if you are being accidentally or purposefully misleading. No one has a problem with simple HTML. That's never the dispute. People have a problem with Google servers seizing control of the client <-> server relationship.
- gravypod 7y agoThe MITM happens at an application level. Not from your backend. A client chooses who to get the AMP content from: Google or You. Users who don't want Google's edge caching (MITM) can use software that doesn't talk to Google servers and still benefit from the plane HTML.
- ori_b 7y agoWhich software would that be?
- gravypod 7y agoAny software that provides you a link to content can implement, and also choose not to implement, AMP's edge caching (MITM) support. One might be Google's Android launcher's news app, another might be Telegram's "Instant View" feature for links, or hypothetically even a terminal app could load an AMP page.
- paulddraper 7y agoInstead of speaking in vague terms about "optional application-level MITM from the backend cache", it might help to illustrate the choice users have with concrete examples. With real world examples, how can an ordinary choose to use AMP and how can an ordinary user choose not to.
- gravypod 7y ago> Instead of speaking in vague terms about "application-level MITM from Google's back end" I don't consider actual, verifiable, facts vague. > In real world terms, how can they choose to use AMP and how can they choose not to. They can use software that doesn't load AMP pages from Google and instead loads them from the host site. You can do this by using DuckDuckGo as a search engine which won't return URLs to Google's cache of AMP content. You can use messaging apps that will open your web browser and navigate to links rather than using the AMP version. Edit: Here is an example. Assuming you are on a desktop browser you should be able to navigate to this url and see a page: https://preview.amp.dev/documentation/examples/e-commerce/checkout_flow#development=1 https://preview.amp.dev/documentation/examples/e-commerce/ch... This is a Google made example of an AMP page. It's pretty bare bones but as you can see if you open up your browser's networking tab the browser is talking to `preview.amp.dev` not to the AMP caching URLs. Your browser is fetching content directly from the site. There is nothing stopping software from doing this with an AMP page.
- paulddraper 7y agoI meant to say "abstract" not "vague".
- dmitriid 7y ago1. AMP is not HTML5-compatible beginning with their amp declaration. 2. AMP is a set of web components that rely on JS to properly render. 3. If JS is disabled, page content is hidden by a CSS declaration 4. AMP pages are treated differently by the dominant search player So yes. On the surface it’s “just plain HTML page”. Technically.
- acqq 7y agoAlso, on my iPhone I can never open articles on AMP in the "Reader view", destroying my accessibility needs. The articles that were completely readable in the original form become 100% unreadable as soon as they are AMP. It can still be verified on the publisher’s site that there it works, but how long will that remain? Long ago, it was seen that Microsoft had the policy "our OS isn't finished if the competior's program is still functioning." Google's “OS” is effectively all the web resources they control and then they "accidentally" miss to support Apple's browsers. Especially when they manage to bring all the news content producers to use their “technology.” AMP is evil. Behind seemingly “technical” solution is a huge additional monopolisation of the web by Google. Purely seen on that level it should be illegal. It’s in the interest of the society to allow the competition and disable the strengthening of the monopolies.
- dmitriid 7y ago> and then they "accidentally" miss to support Apple's browsers. And Firefox. See this thread by Jonathan Nightingale about Google breaking FF on purpose: https://mobile.twitter.com/johnath/status/1116871231792455686 https://mobile.twitter.com/johnath/status/111687123179245568...
- underwater 7y agoIt's an HTML document that is only usable when you execute Google hosted JavaScript to display the custom web components.