Standardizing lessons learned from AMP

Re:Standardizing lessons learned from AMP by falcolas on Thursday March 08, 2018 @12:34PM (#16545978)

From the point of view of a user concerned with Google's influence, this seems like a good move.

From the point of view of a SRE who would have to help configure a server side implementation of web packaging, having yet another http request/response type to build and maintain seems like a bloody nightmare. And OCSP with the signature when Chrome themselves have disabled its use? It also requires custom behavior from the client, all-but-guaranteeing it won't be broadly honored.

And ultimately, I'm confused about how this replaces, or supplements AMP.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Standardizing lessons learned from AMP by michaelmior on Thursday March 08, 2018 @12:44PM (#16546059)

I don't believe it's intended to really replace AMP. It sounds like Google is establishing a set of performance guidelines (as many have been encouraging them to do). If you want to meet those guidelines, one way is to use AMP which I expect they'll continue to maintain and build on. If you don't like AMP for whatever reason, you can use whatever solution you want to meet the same guidelines.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Standardizing lessons learned from AMP by dmitriid on Thursday March 08, 2018 @01:27PM (#16546412)

Google has had performance guidelines for seveal years now: https://developers.google.com/speed/

Funnily enough, Google’s own AMP fails those guidelines when not preloaded and pre-rendered from Google’s own CDN: https://ferdychristant.com/amp-the-missing-controversy-3b424...

Google will continue doing what it does: caching and preloading whatever content it prefers (select publishers, select advertisers) and penalize everyone else even if they follow all of Google’s guidelines to a T.

Web Packages, no matter how well you disguise them as a web standard, will not solve that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Standardizing lessons learned from AMP by reaperducer on Thursday March 08, 2018 @01:13PM (#16546298)

> And OCSP with the signature when Chrome themselves have disabled its use?

It's not the first (or probably last) time that Big G's said "Do as we say, not as we do."

Heck, the blog post is hosted on WordPress instead of Google's own Blogger.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Standardizing lessons learned from AMP by Ajedi32 on Thursday March 08, 2018 @02:49PM (#16547078)

Chrome hasn't disabled OCSP. It just only enforces it when you're doing OCSP stapling with must-staple. Firefox did the same: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1366100

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Standardizing lessons learned from AMP by username223 on Thursday March 08, 2018 @03:21PM (#16547317)

> Heck, the blog post is hosted on WordPress instead of Google's own Blogger.

That made me chuckle, and gave me a sense of how much they value this PR chum. Please, guys; at least make a semi-convincing attempt to pretend you think we're not morons. Hosting a blog post on your own domain would cost you almost nothing. You could even load it up with your own ads to recoup the cost.

[ Parent | on HN ]