W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > March 2016

An interesting take on AMP versus PWP

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 22:39:35 +0000
To: "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <974151A2-3DAB-4281-A240-6FA43ECF0ADC@adobe.com>
I don’t know enough about AMP to evaluate this, but thought I should pass it on.

Thanks,

Alan

(an attempt to quote twitter in email)

https://twitter.com/fakebaldur/status/714941460416741376



Baldur Bjarnason
‏@fakebaldur

> An interesting side-effect of AMP's basic model is 
> that anybody can run an AMP CDN and, because behaviour 
> is well-defined, customise it
> 
> If you have an app/platform & would like to control 
> the performance or representation of AMP pages linked 
> from it, you could do your own CDN
> 
> That includes anything from aggressively pre-loading 
> linked AMP pages to tweaking how its custom elements 
> behave.
> 
> By sub-setting HTML and limiting JS behaviour to a 
> strictly defined set of custom elements, Google has 
> effectively created portable web docs
> 
> Which basically makes most of what the W3C's Digital 
> Publishing Interest Group is working on, a modern 
> XHTML2 to Google AMP's HTML5

Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 22:40:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:41 UTC