Conversation

Notices

1. Baldur Bjarnason (baldur@toot.cafe)'s status on Sunday, 21-May-2017 20:59:05 UTC Baldur Bjarnason

   You could either rail against AMP or marvel at the fact that Google has effectively convinced most of the web to turn on full content feeds.

   AMP is designed to be portable from origin to arbitrary locations (caches). It's basically Syndication 2.0, succeeding where RSS/atom didn't.

   Rather than seeing AMP pages as crippled-but-fast web pages, think of them as full content feeds with substantial additional support for interactivity and styles.

   • Hallå Kitteh repeated this.
   • Baldur Bjarnason (baldur@toot.cafe)'s status on Sunday, 21-May-2017 21:01:05 UTC Baldur Bjarnason

     in reply to

     The potential tragedy of AMP is the same as with feeds: of the entire tech industry, only Google seems to see the potential of the model.

     AMP lets you build apps where you can aggregate, store, & serve _locally_ large parts of the web without making deals with individual sites. For Mastodon, this could mean, for example, your local instance storing caches of AMP articles, pre-rendering them when they are linked to in your feed, causing them to load instantly when clicked.

     Hallå Kitteh repeated this.
   • Baldur Bjarnason (baldur@toot.cafe)'s status on Sunday, 21-May-2017 21:06:53 UTC Baldur Bjarnason

     in reply to

     AMP could make it really easy for you to make systems where the entire page is archived when you like a link. Or it could make it easier for you to make a reliable copy for yourself to annotate. Regular pages have a habit of breaking when slurped up from one location to another whereas that's specifically what AMP is for.

     AMP has downsides, sure. But most of those are largely caused by the fact that the current primary consumer of AMP is an amoral tech co. It doesn't have to stay that way.

     Hallå Kitteh repeated this.