News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on AMP: the missing controversy. Parent comment

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by mcguire on Saturday February 24, 2018 @05:27PM (#16455828)
Am I reading the article right: the browser preloads resources from amp pages from the search page?

That's going to be hard to fix in an HTMLLite sorry of way.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:AMP: the missing controversy by tankenmate on Saturday February 24, 2018 @06:16PM (#16456070)
HTTP/2 servers can preload (if they choose).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:AMP: the missing controversy by dragonwriter on Saturday February 24, 2018 @07:07PM (#16456281)
Doesn't that require same origin, and thus AMP-style central caching?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:AMP: the missing controversy by lozenge on Sunday February 25, 2018 @03:57AM (#16457956)
Google is pushing "HTTP origin signed responses" which will mean Google or any other implementing server can cache responses from other (willing) origins and push or offer them. Then, the address bar can show the actual origin, instead of www.google.com/amp as the origin.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:AMP: the missing controversy by underwater on Saturday February 24, 2018 @08:38PM (#16456623)
Preload is different from push.
[ Parent | on HN ]