4 ms·

For starters I'm not suggesting - that everyone has to serve all their content from a single domain. I only suggest serving optional Javascript from a single v

For starters I'm not suggesting - that everyone has to serve all their content from a single domain. I only suggest serving optional Javascript from a single vetted repo. - that the distribution repo should be owned and controlled by one if the worlds largest advertising companies. - that the solution only should cover mobile.

jefftk 6y ago
Those are mostly not the case anymore for AMP; the only one that looks correct to me is that AMP documents have to include the AMP runtime. If you wanted to make a pure HTML+CSS page, with no JavaScript, I can't think of any technical reason why the AMP specification couldn't be extended to consider that valid AMP. I think the main question is whether there are many sites that would be interested in serving that way? For your other points: * The AMP project is now part of the OpenJS foundation, along with Node, Electron, and others: https://openjsf.org/blog/2020/06/23/openjs-world-day-one-highlights/ https://openjsf.org/blog/2020/06/23/openjs-world-day-one-hig... * AMP is not specific to mobile, though it did start that way; there are sites that serve all of their pages in AMP format to both mobile and desktop users. (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)
- eitland 6y ago
  > If you wanted to make a pure HTML+CSS page, with no JavaScript, I can't think of any technical reason why the AMP specification couldn't be extended to consider that valid AMP. Meaning that right now it isn't that way, right? > The AMP project is now part of the OpenJS foundation, along with Node, Electron, and others: https://openjsf.org/blog/2020/06/23/openjs-world-day-one-hig.. https://openjsf.org/blog/2020/06/23/openjs-world-day-one-hig.... For some reason everyone still seems to associate amp with Google, and the only times I can remember finding AMP pages are when I search with Google. If a site is technically AMP but served from a non Google domain, I admit I haven't noticed it.
  - jefftk 6y ago
    > Meaning that right now it isn't that way, right? Correct, the current spec doesn't allow that. But, as I said, I think that is something that could reasonably easily change if many sites wanted to publish with vanilla CSS and HTML. > For some reason everyone still seems to associate amp with Google, and the only times I can remember finding AMP pages are when I search with Google Google started the project, and is still by far the biggest contributor. But Bing also supports AMP, caching and serving AMP pages: https://www.bing.com/webmaster/help/bing-amp-cache-bc1c884c https://www.bing.com/webmaster/help/bing-amp-cache-bc1c884c

jefftk 6y ago

Those are mostly not the case anymore for AMP; the only one that looks correct to me is that AMP documents have to include the AMP runtime. If you wanted to make a pure HTML+CSS page, with no JavaScript, I can't think of any technical reason why the AMP specification couldn't be extended to consider that valid AMP. I think the main question is whether there are many sites that would be interested in serving that way? For your other points: * The AMP project is now part of the OpenJS foundation, along with Node, Electron, and others: https://openjsf.org/blog/2020/06/23/openjs-world-day-one-highlights/ https://openjsf.org/blog/2020/06/23/openjs-world-day-one-hig... * AMP is not specific to mobile, though it did start that way; there are sites that serve all of their pages in AMP format to both mobile and desktop users. (Disclosure: I work for Google, speaking only for myself)

eitland 6y ago
> If you wanted to make a pure HTML+CSS page, with no JavaScript, I can't think of any technical reason why the AMP specification couldn't be extended to consider that valid AMP. Meaning that right now it isn't that way, right? > The AMP project is now part of the OpenJS foundation, along with Node, Electron, and others: https://openjsf.org/blog/2020/06/23/openjs-world-day-one-hig.. https://openjsf.org/blog/2020/06/23/openjs-world-day-one-hig.... For some reason everyone still seems to associate amp with Google, and the only times I can remember finding AMP pages are when I search with Google. If a site is technically AMP but served from a non Google domain, I admit I haven't noticed it.
- jefftk 6y ago
  > Meaning that right now it isn't that way, right? Correct, the current spec doesn't allow that. But, as I said, I think that is something that could reasonably easily change if many sites wanted to publish with vanilla CSS and HTML. > For some reason everyone still seems to associate amp with Google, and the only times I can remember finding AMP pages are when I search with Google Google started the project, and is still by far the biggest contributor. But Bing also supports AMP, caching and serving AMP pages: https://www.bing.com/webmaster/help/bing-amp-cache-bc1c884c https://www.bing.com/webmaster/help/bing-amp-cache-bc1c884c