3 ms·

> 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 consid

> 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