W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > April 2016

Re: Canonical content and AMP

From: Philip Sheldrake <philip@eulerpartners.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:02:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD0eYd7MQ_+t0WcXtg6KBbuDc1zmtzWV_3ttAJu3bqZEbcoPAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>
I didn’t think much about AMP until I read this Search Engine Watch article
<https://searchenginewatch.com/2016/02/22/what-will-googles-accelerated-mobile-pages-amp-mean-for-marketers/>
in February. This is the phrase that caused a pang: “Simply put,
Accelerated Mobile Pages is a stripped-down version of the mobile web which
runs on a reinvented version of the language used to create web pages:
HTML.”

The article describes AMP as “Google’s answer to Facebook’s Instant
Articles and Apple News.”

I can only agree with Andrew… technologies like AMP promote duplication of
content in multiple formats in different locations on the web, and that’s a
bad thing. Especially in those situations (all of the above) where the
architectural sleight of hand helps continue to centralize the action.

And I can’t see there’s much we can do about it. Directly that is. It’s a
classic case of what the hi:project team has come to call
short-term-gain-long-term-pain. And just look at all those publishing
companies signing up for that short-term-gain – market and technological
forces leave them no option imho.


On 19 April 2016 at 15:48, Travis Leithead <travis.leithead@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> My initial reaction is that AMP, while good intentioned and helpful for
> performance, is similar to the “mobile web” XHTML subset or the TV
> subsetting that we discussed. The difference is that AMP is opt-in by the
> developer community, so it’s not device- or browser-makers building it in…
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Betts [mailto:andrew.betts@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2016 1:31 AM
> *To:* www-tag@w3.org
> *Subject:* Canonical content and AMP
>
>
>
> At the F2F in March I was concerned that the best progressive web apps
> were generally mobile-only, and I’m getting a similar feeling about AMP.
>
>
>
> I’m wondering whether TAG have a view on the use of `m.` sites.  >From an
> architectural perspective `m.` is a bad thing, surely.  But I can’t build
> my desktop webpages using AMP - because I would lose essential features
> like reader comments, so I'm stuck serving (at least) two copies of the
> same document.
>
>
>
> HTML sandbox / Content Performance Policy seems like a better approach,
> but I’m wondering whether I’m alone in thinking that a) technologies like
> AMP can promote duplication of content in multiple formats in different
> locations on the web, and 2) that’s a bad thing.
>
>
>
> Seems to me that we've spent the last few years gradually moving away from
> m., and we're now heading back towards that territory.  Is this a conscious
> recognition that One-Responsive-To-Rule-Them-All was a bad idea?
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 17:02:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:57:13 UTC