Re: An interesting take on AMP versus PWP

I think it's worth noting that AMP could be considered a portable document
format for sorts but by NO MEANS is it a complete or fully functional
document that we hope to scope out with PWP.

It would be interesting for us to look at how AMP solves a few issues - but
I really don't think it answers much - it just limits functionality to
ensure high-performance (speed).

There are some interesting overviews and resources on AMP (
https://www.ampproject.org/) but I personally disagree very strongly with
Baldur's last paragraph (which sadly seems to be a theme - i like most of
what Baldur says and then in his last paragraph he jumps the shark in a way
that leaves me blinking...)

-Nick

On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>


-- 
- Nick Ruffilo
@NickRuffilo
Aer.io an *INGRAM* company