Canonical content and AMP

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Canonical content and AMP

Andrew Betts
At the F2F in March I was concerned that the best progressive web apps were generally mobile-only, and I’m getting a similar feeling about AMP.

I’m wondering whether TAG have a view on the use of `m.` sites.  From an architectural perspective `m.` is a bad thing, surely.  But I can’t build my desktop webpages using AMP - because I would lose essential features like reader comments, so I'm stuck serving (at least) two copies of the same document.

HTML sandbox / Content Performance Policy seems like a better approach, but I’m wondering whether I’m alone in thinking that a) technologies like AMP can promote duplication of content in multiple formats in different locations on the web, and 2) that’s a bad thing.

Seems to me that we've spent the last few years gradually moving away from m., and we're now heading back towards that territory.  Is this a conscious recognition that One-Responsive-To-Rule-Them-All was a bad idea?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Canonical content and AMP

Travis Leithead-2

My initial reaction is that AMP, while good intentioned and helpful for performance, is similar to the “mobile web” XHTML subset or the TV subsetting that we discussed. The difference is that AMP is opt-in by the developer community, so it’s not device- or browser-makers building it in…

 

From: Andrew Betts [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 1:31 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Canonical content and AMP

 

At the F2F in March I was concerned that the best progressive web apps were generally mobile-only, and I’m getting a similar feeling about AMP.

 

I’m wondering whether TAG have a view on the use of `m.` sites.  From an architectural perspective `m.` is a bad thing, surely.  But I can’t build my desktop webpages using AMP - because I would lose essential features like reader comments, so I'm stuck serving (at least) two copies of the same document.

 

HTML sandbox / Content Performance Policy seems like a better approach, but I’m wondering whether I’m alone in thinking that a) technologies like AMP can promote duplication of content in multiple formats in different locations on the web, and 2) that’s a bad thing.

 

Seems to me that we've spent the last few years gradually moving away from m., and we're now heading back towards that territory.  Is this a conscious recognition that One-Responsive-To-Rule-Them-All was a bad idea?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Canonical content and AMP

Philip Sheldrake
I didn’t think much about AMP until I read this Search Engine Watch article in February. This is the phrase that caused a pang: “Simply put, Accelerated Mobile Pages is a stripped-down version of the mobile web which runs on a reinvented version of the language used to create web pages: HTML.”

The article describes AMP as “Google’s answer to Facebook’s Instant Articles and Apple News.”

I can only agree with Andrew… technologies like AMP promote duplication of content in multiple formats in different locations on the web, and that’s a bad thing. Especially in those situations (all of the above) where the architectural sleight of hand helps continue to centralize the action.

And I can’t see there’s much we can do about it. Directly that is. It’s a classic case of what the hi:project team has come to call short-term-gain-long-term-pain. And just look at all those publishing companies signing up for that short-term-gain – market and technological forces leave them no option imho.


On 19 April 2016 at 15:48, Travis Leithead <[hidden email]> wrote:

My initial reaction is that AMP, while good intentioned and helpful for performance, is similar to the “mobile web” XHTML subset or the TV subsetting that we discussed. The difference is that AMP is opt-in by the developer community, so it’s not device- or browser-makers building it in…

 

From: Andrew Betts [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 1:31 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Canonical content and AMP

 

At the F2F in March I was concerned that the best progressive web apps were generally mobile-only, and I’m getting a similar feeling about AMP.

 

I’m wondering whether TAG have a view on the use of `m.` sites.  From an architectural perspective `m.` is a bad thing, surely.  But I can’t build my desktop webpages using AMP - because I would lose essential features like reader comments, so I'm stuck serving (at least) two copies of the same document.

 

HTML sandbox / Content Performance Policy seems like a better approach, but I’m wondering whether I’m alone in thinking that a) technologies like AMP can promote duplication of content in multiple formats in different locations on the web, and 2) that’s a bad thing.

 

Seems to me that we've spent the last few years gradually moving away from m., and we're now heading back towards that territory.  Is this a conscious recognition that One-Responsive-To-Rule-Them-All was a bad idea?