5 ms·

By "their CDN" I meant Google, Cloudflare and Microsoft. Can we set up our own CDN to serve our own content from our own servers and receive the AMP badge in se

By "their CDN" I meant Google, Cloudflare and Microsoft. Can we set up our own CDN to serve our own content from our own servers and receive the AMP badge in search results? Please disclose your affiliation to Google either in your bio or in comments, and don't post the same comment in multiple places.

joshuamorton 7y ago
> Can we set up our own CDN to serve our own content from our own servers and receive the AMP badge in search results This...doesn't make sense. You lose the value of a CDN (both to you and to the consumer of your content, in this case Google and the end user) if you're rolling your own.
- dessant 7y ago
  It no longer makes sense to be able serve our own content without it being pushed down in search results? We were talking about CDNs because your collegue mentioned AMP CDNs, but the main point doesn't change: we cannot serve our own content from our own servers and get the same placement in search results as AMP content, even if our content loads verifiably fast and is as performant as an AMP page on the client.
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    > We were talking about CDNs because your collegue mentioned AMP CDNs I have no clue who bdeurst is. They certainly aren't a colleague of mine. > even if our content loads verifiably fast and is as performant as an AMP page on the client. Can you explain to me how your page load time is 0ms? My understanding is that a correctly functioning AMP-cached page will load for the user in a whopping 0ms, because it can be preloaded. The entire design of AMP starts from a fairly straightforward premise: "How do we reduce (user-visible) page load times to 0, safely, cross origin?" If your pages user-visible loading time is longer than 0, you're failing to keep up with AMP.
    - dessant 7y ago
      AMP pages are preloaded, that's how your get the 0ms load time. If Google would instruct the browser to preload other search results the same way, those would also be available in 0ms when the user accesses them.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        See my statement about secure, cross origin preloads. You're asking a search engine to XSS attack its own users.
        dessant 7y ago
        I think the correct term I was looking for is prefetching. That's a secure way to tell the browser to start loading search result links in the background.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        > That's a secure way to tell the browser to start loading search result links in the background prefetching isn't private cross origin: > Along with the referral and URL-following implications already mentioned above, prefetching will generally cause the cookies of the prefetched site to be accessed.[1] IDK about you, but I'd generally prefer that my cookies and IP not be exposed to all of the links that happen to be in the first page of search results. [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Link_prefetching_FAQ https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Link_prefe...
        dessant 7y ago
        Browser specs can be improved, and new ones introduced. And even if safe prefetching is deemed technically impossible, the question remains: should we give Google and a handful of other companies disproportionate control over how we publish and consume content, for 50ms of load time?
bduerst 7y ago
I see what you're saying but im not sure that's a problem - how many people are building CDNs in their garages that need to be certified? Also, everything I say on HN reflects my own opinion and not any organization, which is what my profile states. I do not hide behind an anonymous username precisely for this reason. Poisoning the well by doxxing me doesn't change how the AMP standard works for CDNs either, and only serves to derail the conversation.
- lol768 7y ago
  >Everything I say on HN reflects my own opinion and not any organizations, which is what my profile states Sorry, but I agree with dessant. Your profile doesn't disclose your affiliation and nor do your comments. It's absolutely relevant to the discussion, because whether you want to admit it or not (or try your best to act neutral), your day job will have some influence over your opinions on these sort of projects. You're right that it doesn't change objective facts about the specification, but I think it's misleading to suggest that, in general, external third-party CDNs are first class citizens in the AMP ecosystem when they're not treated the same within search.

joshuamorton 7y ago

> Can we set up our own CDN to serve our own content from our own servers and receive the AMP badge in search results This...doesn't make sense. You lose the value of a CDN (both to you and to the consumer of your content, in this case Google and the end user) if you're rolling your own.

dessant 7y ago
It no longer makes sense to be able serve our own content without it being pushed down in search results? We were talking about CDNs because your collegue mentioned AMP CDNs, but the main point doesn't change: we cannot serve our own content from our own servers and get the same placement in search results as AMP content, even if our content loads verifiably fast and is as performant as an AMP page on the client.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  > We were talking about CDNs because your collegue mentioned AMP CDNs I have no clue who bdeurst is. They certainly aren't a colleague of mine. > even if our content loads verifiably fast and is as performant as an AMP page on the client. Can you explain to me how your page load time is 0ms? My understanding is that a correctly functioning AMP-cached page will load for the user in a whopping 0ms, because it can be preloaded. The entire design of AMP starts from a fairly straightforward premise: "How do we reduce (user-visible) page load times to 0, safely, cross origin?" If your pages user-visible loading time is longer than 0, you're failing to keep up with AMP.
  - dessant 7y ago
    AMP pages are preloaded, that's how your get the 0ms load time. If Google would instruct the browser to preload other search results the same way, those would also be available in 0ms when the user accesses them.
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      See my statement about secure, cross origin preloads. You're asking a search engine to XSS attack its own users.
      - dessant 7y ago
        I think the correct term I was looking for is prefetching. That's a secure way to tell the browser to start loading search result links in the background.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        > That's a secure way to tell the browser to start loading search result links in the background prefetching isn't private cross origin: > Along with the referral and URL-following implications already mentioned above, prefetching will generally cause the cookies of the prefetched site to be accessed.[1] IDK about you, but I'd generally prefer that my cookies and IP not be exposed to all of the links that happen to be in the first page of search results. [1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Link_prefetching_FAQ https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Link_prefe...
        dessant 7y ago
        Browser specs can be improved, and new ones introduced. And even if safe prefetching is deemed technically impossible, the question remains: should we give Google and a handful of other companies disproportionate control over how we publish and consume content, for 50ms of load time?

bduerst 7y ago

I see what you're saying but im not sure that's a problem - how many people are building CDNs in their garages that need to be certified? Also, everything I say on HN reflects my own opinion and not any organization, which is what my profile states. I do not hide behind an anonymous username precisely for this reason. Poisoning the well by doxxing me doesn't change how the AMP standard works for CDNs either, and only serves to derail the conversation.

lol768 7y ago
>Everything I say on HN reflects my own opinion and not any organizations, which is what my profile states Sorry, but I agree with dessant. Your profile doesn't disclose your affiliation and nor do your comments. It's absolutely relevant to the discussion, because whether you want to admit it or not (or try your best to act neutral), your day job will have some influence over your opinions on these sort of projects. You're right that it doesn't change objective facts about the specification, but I think it's misleading to suggest that, in general, external third-party CDNs are first class citizens in the AMP ecosystem when they're not treated the same within search.