3 ms·
Anyone else who inserts themselves in the URL should be fought as well. I guess you're making a minor technical point, and it's technically correct. Someone el
by leereeves 7y ago
Anyone else who inserts themselves in the URL should be fought as well.
I guess you're making a minor technical point, and it's technically correct. Someone else could do AMP better. But until someone does, why not shorten "Google's implementation of AMP" to simply "AMP"? Is there any other?
- mrb 7y agoBing also caches AMP content: https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2018/Introducing-Bing-AMP-viewer-and-Bing-AMP-cache https://blogs.bing.com/Webmaster-Blog/September-2018/Introdu... I agree that there is a UX problem to solve (the address bar should show the original URL, copying it should preserve the original URL, etc) but whether the webpage got loaded from the original site or from some AMP cache is irrelevant.
- leereeves 7y agoInteresting, thanks for that. I don't really follow what Bing does. It looks like Bing has the same problem, and serves AMP from bing-amp.com.