5 ms·

AMP pages are just HTML. Publishers can and do use AMP pages as their "regular" pages that every user sees, not just those coming from Google. Other aggregators

AMP pages are just HTML. Publishers can and do use AMP pages as their "regular" pages that every user sees, not just those coming from Google. Other aggregators (Bing, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc) link to AMP versions. These pages are far from only accessible from Google queries.

dmitriid 7y ago
Hello, gregablr who works on AMP and forgets to disclose it: No, AMP is not "just HTML". It's not HTML5-compliant. It requires js to run and display properly (because Web Components), it gets preferential treatment in Google Search. It's not plain HTML.
- ogre_codes 7y ago
  Astroturfing FTW!
- gregable 7y ago
  Any AMP page can be HTML5 compliant. AMP doesn't require that the page pass an HTML5 validator, but is entirely compatible with HTML5. JavaScript and Web Components are part of the HTML5 standard. This is simply the Extensible Web (https://www.w3.org/community/nextweb/2013/06/11/the-extensible-web-manifesto/ https://www.w3.org/community/nextweb/2013/06/11/the-extensib...) My profile discloses that I work on AMP.
  - joegahona 7y ago
    Since you work on AMP, can you please disclose why Google results call the AMP carousel “Top Stories,” when indeed it’s not the top stories, but the top _AMP_ stories? Please create a ticket that instructs engineers to immediately change this nomenclature to either “Top AMP Stories” or start allowing non-Amp pages to appear in this carousel. This is misleading to users of Google.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      Presumably, the people who work on the AMP spec are different from the people who work on Google search (or for that matter, Bing search, Yandex search, or any other search engine that consumes AMP). I doubt he has any control over how search results are ranked or presented.
      - dmitriid 7y ago
        That's the main problem with AMP. For any issue that AMP is the cause of the AMP team goes: "not our problem, ask the people who implement a specific feature". Plausible deniability and all that.
        lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Do you have any examples? Also, in what way is search ranking a problem of the AMP team?
  - dmitriid 7y ago
    > Any AMP page can be HTML5 compliant. They are not compliant by default. > This is simply the Extensible Web That gets exclusive preferential treatment by Google. It's not "just HTML".
ogre_codes 7y ago
Publishers can and some do, but from what I've seen, the overwhelming majority do not. The overwhelming majority of "modern" web-sites are a shit show. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for AMP.
saagarjha 7y ago
If they’re just HTML pages, why would I use AMP?
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  Because, as you have repeatedly shown you already know, AMP pages are a constrained HTML that supports safe prerendering. Why ask a question you already know the answer to?
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    > AMP pages are a constrained HTML that supports safe prerendering Then they're not HTML, are they? As other commenters have pointed out, nobody is using the constrained set of AMP as their main page, precisely because it's not "just HTML". (And specifically, Google controls which subset of HTML this is.)
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > Then they're not HTML, are they? A square has four sides that are equal length. Does that make it not a rectangle? > As other commenters have pointed out, nobody is using the constrained set of AMP as their main page People don't use squares where they need oblong rectangles, but that doesn't mean squares are not rectangles. > And specifically, Google controls which subset of HTML this is. No, the technical steering committee of the AMP project at the OpenJS Foundation determines that. Most of the members of that committee do not work for Google.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        > People don't use squares where they need oblong rectangles, but that doesn't mean squares are not rectangles. You're omitting the context of that quote for trite point-scoring. If I was advertised a browser that "supported HTML" I would very reasonably expect that it had a reasonable set of features, perhaps score well on compatibility benchmarks, and in general make an effort to conform to the relevant standards. If all it did was render <p> tags it would still be technically correct (it supports HTML!) but I would rightfully be less than pleased. > No, the technical steering committee of the AMP project at the OpenJS Foundation determines that. Most of the members of that committee do not work for Google. As I have pointed out to you previously (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20731535; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20731535; I regret the typo), Google has extremely strong control over the Technical Steering Committee; while you are again correct to claim that they do not have a majority position, it would require unanimous coalition of every other member to oppose them.

dmitriid 7y ago

Hello, gregablr who works on AMP and forgets to disclose it: No, AMP is not "just HTML". It's not HTML5-compliant. It requires js to run and display properly (because Web Components), it gets preferential treatment in Google Search. It's not plain HTML.

ogre_codes 7y ago
Astroturfing FTW!
gregable 7y ago
Any AMP page can be HTML5 compliant. AMP doesn't require that the page pass an HTML5 validator, but is entirely compatible with HTML5. JavaScript and Web Components are part of the HTML5 standard. This is simply the Extensible Web (https://www.w3.org/community/nextweb/2013/06/11/the-extensible-web-manifesto/ https://www.w3.org/community/nextweb/2013/06/11/the-extensib...) My profile discloses that I work on AMP.
- joegahona 7y ago
  Since you work on AMP, can you please disclose why Google results call the AMP carousel “Top Stories,” when indeed it’s not the top stories, but the top _AMP_ stories? Please create a ticket that instructs engineers to immediately change this nomenclature to either “Top AMP Stories” or start allowing non-Amp pages to appear in this carousel. This is misleading to users of Google.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    Presumably, the people who work on the AMP spec are different from the people who work on Google search (or for that matter, Bing search, Yandex search, or any other search engine that consumes AMP). I doubt he has any control over how search results are ranked or presented.
    - dmitriid 7y ago
      That's the main problem with AMP. For any issue that AMP is the cause of the AMP team goes: "not our problem, ask the people who implement a specific feature". Plausible deniability and all that.
      - lern_too_spel 7y ago
        Do you have any examples? Also, in what way is search ranking a problem of the AMP team?
- dmitriid 7y ago
  > Any AMP page can be HTML5 compliant. They are not compliant by default. > This is simply the Extensible Web That gets exclusive preferential treatment by Google. It's not "just HTML".

ogre_codes 7y ago

Publishers can and some do, but from what I've seen, the overwhelming majority do not. The overwhelming majority of "modern" web-sites are a shit show. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for AMP.

saagarjha 7y ago

If they’re just HTML pages, why would I use AMP?

lern_too_spel 7y ago
Because, as you have repeatedly shown you already know, AMP pages are a constrained HTML that supports safe prerendering. Why ask a question you already know the answer to?
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > AMP pages are a constrained HTML that supports safe prerendering Then they're not HTML, are they? As other commenters have pointed out, nobody is using the constrained set of AMP as their main page, precisely because it's not "just HTML". (And specifically, Google controls which subset of HTML this is.)
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > Then they're not HTML, are they? A square has four sides that are equal length. Does that make it not a rectangle? > As other commenters have pointed out, nobody is using the constrained set of AMP as their main page People don't use squares where they need oblong rectangles, but that doesn't mean squares are not rectangles. > And specifically, Google controls which subset of HTML this is. No, the technical steering committee of the AMP project at the OpenJS Foundation determines that. Most of the members of that committee do not work for Google.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      > People don't use squares where they need oblong rectangles, but that doesn't mean squares are not rectangles. You're omitting the context of that quote for trite point-scoring. If I was advertised a browser that "supported HTML" I would very reasonably expect that it had a reasonable set of features, perhaps score well on compatibility benchmarks, and in general make an effort to conform to the relevant standards. If all it did was render <p> tags it would still be technically correct (it supports HTML!) but I would rightfully be less than pleased. > No, the technical steering committee of the AMP project at the OpenJS Foundation determines that. Most of the members of that committee do not work for Google. As I have pointed out to you previously (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20731535; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20731535; I regret the typo), Google has extremely strong control over the Technical Steering Committee; while you are again correct to claim that they do not have a majority position, it would require unanimous coalition of every other member to oppose them.