4 ms·

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 ma

by 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

by jefftk 6y ago

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