AMP: the missing controversy

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by ocdtrekkie on Saturday February 24, 2018 @05:23PM (#16455807)

I make this mistake too, but we need to stop calling it an open standard unless it's handed over to a neutral standards-making body. AMP's solution to the URL problem involves another Google-pushed web standard, webpackage. But the big difference is that webpackage is part of the WICG, a community group under the W3C. That's a real standard, this is not.

If AMP not handed over to the W3C, I don't think we can or should call it a standard.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by indigochill on Saturday February 24, 2018 @05:41PM (#16455884)

I'm not at all up on my tech politics, but I'm curious about your implication that the W3C is neutral. Is that something we can take for granted, given the way they went forward with EME[0]? Otherwise, though, I'm inclined to agree.

[0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/amid-unprecedented-con...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by ocdtrekkie on Saturday February 24, 2018 @05:44PM (#16455901)

I'm definitely not fond of EME, but the W3C's interests go well beyond that of a single corporation. For instance, WICG, which I mentioned, lists three chairs, who are employed by Google, Mozilla, and Akamai respectively.

I don't think Mozilla was super fond of EME either, but couldn't afford to be "the web browser that can't watch Netflix".

I definitely do remain wary of these groups being forced to rubber stamp things, I do feel Google exerts way too much control even in that space, because due to their monopolies, they can just implement what they want, and sometimes the W3C has to accept it or be irrelevant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by lern_too_spel on Saturday February 24, 2018 @10:27PM (#16456942)

I want instantly loaded web pages now, not in 5 years when the standard is ready and Apple has finished dragging its heels and implemented it in its browsers, allowing publishers to finally use it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by quanticle on Saturday February 24, 2018 @10:36PM (#16456970)

That attitude is what allowed Internet Explorer to become the dominant browser. What are you going to do when Google gets bored of supporting Chrome and disbands the team, leaving your web pages tied to a stagnating browser?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by lern_too_spel on Saturday February 24, 2018 @11:30PM (#16457135)

> What are you going to do when Google gets bored of supporting Chrome and disbands the team, leaving your web pages tied to a stagnating browser?

The whole point is that AMP works on all major browsers as they exist today. Waiting for a new standard and then waiting for Apple to implement it is a non-starter.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by kuschku on Sunday February 25, 2018 @03:47AM (#16457926)

Sure, just like Google Earth works on any browser, or Hangouts, or ...

Google's always only supporting competing software just as much as absolutely necessary

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by lern_too_spel on Sunday February 25, 2018 @11:09AM (#16459554)

Google might make web apps that work in only one browser, but publishers won't publish in a format that supports only one browser. That's why Microsoft, Baidu, Yahoo Japan, etc. also have AMP caches.

On the other hand, using the web package standard as the ancestor suggests would currently trap you to Google.

[ Parent | on HN ]