Re:AMP: the missing controversy
by ec109685 on Saturday February 24, 2018 @07:32PM
(#16456399)
Yes, exactly. They (Google, others) cannot instantly load arbitrary websites because those sites would have access to the google.com domain in an unsafe manner. That is why AMP is “different” than other HTML. It is a safe way to allow Google, Twitter, Bing, Yahoo Japan and others to cache pages and preload/prerender them in the background before the user clicks.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:AMP: the missing controversy
by fchristant on Sunday February 25, 2018 @06:47PM
(#16461939)
We have to differentiate between prefetching from search and prefetching from the actual page being opened.
Google CAN preload arbitrary websites. They fully load your website, JS included, when they index it. As for the security problem when on google.com, they could still preload the HTML, CSS, webfonts, do all the DNS/HTTPS overhead, all of which would be safe to do, save those first few seconds, and create a level playing field.
If Google had genuine interest in just speeding up page loads after search they would let the client prefetch the page (amp or not) straight from the original domain instead of their own cdn.