AMP: the missing controversy

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by cromwellian on Sunday February 25, 2018 @05:17PM (#16461522)

Google shipped NaCL built into their browser and Web store and it didn’t take off. Mozilla shipped a subset of JS just like AMP is a subset of HTML and then they put special accelerated support for it if it validated as asmjs. This won and forced everyone else to adopt it even before it was a standard. Eventually, everyone got together and WASM superceded asmjs. Eventually, something will super-cede AMP, but AMP is the kick-in-the-butt that is needed to get the ball rolling, and like asmjs, it is nothing more than a subset of the standard web and works on all browsers and sites, albeit with different performance characteristics, just like asmjs's introduction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by ocdtrekkie on Sunday February 25, 2018 @07:20PM (#16462080)

Let me ask you the question I've tried to get the AMP tech lead to answer a couple of times: Why won't Google hand AMP over to the W3C?

Bear in mind, in discussions with the AMP tech lead, I've discovered AMP4Email isn't even being approached as a standard. Gmail is implementing it as a proprietary fork of email, and the AMP Project is just deciding whether or not they'll support it directly.

It seems to me that Google only submits to the W3C when it needs other browsers to implement something. Whenever Google's monopolies can handle it, they keep it proprietary.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by cromwellian on Sunday February 25, 2018 @08:22PM (#16462333)

I don't know the answer, I'm not involved in those things, as I say in my profile, my opinions are mine. In my opinion, it might be better to do this through the W3C or IETF, but I don't have the context, so that's an ill-informed gut opinion.

Perhaps there's a perception that the W3C is premature at this stage, as things are quickly evolving and standards committees usually standardize stuff after there's been some proprietary experience.

The W3C might not even be the right venue. For example, changes to JS go through TC'39, whereas changes to protocols go through IETF. Lots of XML/SGTML spec work has been done outside the W3C. I don't feel knowledgeable enough to make an informed comment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:AMP: the missing controversy by jdonaldson on Tuesday February 27, 2018 @02:25AM (#16471668)

Some of us don't really look to W3C for guidance or support any more : https://www.reddit.com/r/javascript/comments/5swe9b/what_is_...

I'm not a fan of some of the aspects of AMP, but I feel like somebody needs to try something new and stir the pot a bit.

[ Parent | on HN ]