Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A new approach to web performance

ampproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 177 posts

Re: A new approach to web performance

#131

Post by elidourado »

gorhill wrote: post #107

I personally choose to block ubiquitous 3rd parties by default[1], to fight both bloat AND privacy exposure. This AMP project reduces the bloat but at the cost of increased privacy exposure. If I globally block `ampproject.org` when visiting a AMP-enabled web pages, the pages do not render at all. My understanding is that now all "Google and its partners" have foiled the ability of visitors to protect their privacy w…

What about selective noscript on amp pages? Should be doable with an extension. Pages will render and no tracking.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#132

Post by spankalee »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #119
spankalee wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Custom elements are a part of HTML, they can be part of a subset. Disqualifying custom elements from an HTML subset would be like claiming function declarations can't be in subsets of JavaScript.

That's not really the same... HTML elements are more like keywords than functions.

Not really. To continue the analogy, in HTML doesn't really have keywords, but has syntax in the form of brackets, quotes, =, etc. Tags are like function calls, and the built in tags are like the standard library. Until custom elements you couldn't declare "functions".

Re: A new approach to web performance

#133

Post by ausjke »

ducuboy wrote: post #38

What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls. Performance is just the story they are selling in exchange of absolute control of the Web. After all, any publisher can ea…

Google's slogan shifted from "don't be evil" to "do the right thing", the former is arguable to say the least based on its records, but moving to the latter is worse, as google can just do the "right" thing for its own benefit, which could be selfish, and blatantly evil sometimes.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#134

Post by plorkyeran »

tombrossman wrote: post #130
gorhill wrote: post #107

I personally choose to block ubiquitous 3rd parties by default[1], to fight both bloat AND privacy exposure. This AMP project reduces the bloat but at the cost of increased privacy exposure. If I globally block `ampproject.org` when visiting a AMP-enabled web pages, the pages do not render at all. My understanding is that now all "Google and its partners" have foiled the ability of visitors to protect their privacy w…

I'm curious why you say "when visiting a AMP-enabled web pages, the pages do not render at all" . I'm not seeing the same result. The first two 'AMP' pages I tested loaded very quickly and were easily readable. I use Firefox with NoScript, which is definitely blocking the JS from ampproject.org. I also use Privacy Badger and uBlock Origin (thanks btw) and I'm not having any trouble at all. Here are the figures for th…

The Verge's page initially gave me a plain white page, but then I realized I was blocking JS from ampproject.org but allowing it from theverge.com, and that combination isn't supported. You have to either block or allow both.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#135

Post by kennydude »

ducuboy wrote: post #43
ducuboy wrote: post #38

What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls. Performance is just the story they are selling in exchange of absolute control of the Web. After all, any publisher can ea…

AMP is just broken HTML, hardly a standard. https://validator.w3.org/nu/?doc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theverge.c...

Interesting how on the HN link it says:

> The page you are currently reading is an AMP HTML document.

Yet it has a proper doctype of ""

Re: A new approach to web performance

#136

Post by cramforce »

scrollaway wrote: post #128
cramforce wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might get it :) There isn't that much to it. AMP is as much about technology as finally getttig that tech adopted. Since AMP is built on web tech there is nothing in it that you cannot chose to do yourself The problem we are solving is that many sites don't.

So what's with the approach then? Why would websites choose to use AMP (whatever "using AMP" means), when they don't apply common sense in the first place? Forgive the skepticism but this screams XKCD927.

One of the things that AMP allows is to know that is it save to prerender a page. Documents can be instructed by a viewer to e.g. only load resources visible above the fold and absolutely no external JS.

With general web content prerendering is pretty dangerous and you certainly cannot do it with say more than 1 doc at a time because it may use arbitrary bandwidth and CPU.

That allows for instant feeling loading of pages (because they are already loaded when the user clicks) which in turn makes users happy :) While all web pages can be fast, AMP allows proving that they are which makes such a feature possible.

A referrer like Twitter or Pinterest or Google could e.g. indicate: Clicks on these links will be super fast (because they are AMP docs). If users click them more (because they like fast) there is a strong incentive for everyone to be fast – and then we all win.

I don't think XKCD927 applies, because we only combine existing standards and restrict ourselves voluntarily to a subset of those. Its still just HTML, CSS, JS. Browsers do not need to change. 't

Re: A new approach to web performance

#137

Post by kllrnohj »

ducuboy wrote: post #38

What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls. Performance is just the story they are selling in exchange of absolute control of the Web. After all, any publisher can ea…

> This isn't an "open standard" guys

They never said it was? The web site just says AMP is open source (which it is). It says nothing about standards.

> Google could have easily promoted performance by applying penalties to heavy pages via Page Rank.

They have been since 2010: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/04/using-sit...

Re: A new approach to web performance

#138

Post by kllrnohj »

ausjke wrote: post #133
ducuboy wrote: post #38

What annoys me is how Google is selling this project. At least Facebook is honest about their Instant Articles. This isn't an "open standard" guys, and it's not about performance! It's about the single piece of js that's allowed on AMP pages and the amp-tags such as and that only Google controls. Performance is just the story they are selling in exchange of absolute control of the Web. After all, any publisher can ea…

Google's slogan shifted from "don't be evil" to "do the right thing", the former is arguable to say the least based on its records, but moving to the latter is worse, as google can just do the "right" thing for its own benefit, which could be selfish, and blatantly evil sometimes.

> Google's slogan shifted from "don't be evil" to "do the right thing"

False. Google's slogan did not change.

Also the full slogan for Alphabet is "do the right thing – follow the law, act honorably, and treat each other with respect." This cannot be selfish & blatantly evil.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#139

Post by kllrnohj »

nateberkopec wrote: post #92
spankalee wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AMP tags are custom elements, they're not invalid. See http://www.w3.org/TR/custom-elements/

Authored by Google, how surprising. Also, I'm not familiar with the W3C process, but since this is a working draft, I'd assume they're invalid until the draft is finalized.

> Also, I'm not familiar with the W3C process

Then don't pull random statements out of your ass about it? What are accepted as standards spend most of their life as W3C working drafts. The W3C doesn't finalize a draft until the feature is obsolete, more or less.

WebWorkers, for example, is still a working draft. So is Web Storage.

The only thing that has ever mattered is browser support, not W3C specs.

Re: A new approach to web performance

#140

Post by scrollaway »

cramforce wrote: post #136
scrollaway wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's with the approach then? Why would websites choose to use AMP (whatever "using AMP" means), when they don't apply common sense in the first place? Forgive the skepticism but this screams XKCD927.

One of the things that AMP allows is to know that is it save to prerender a page. Documents can be instructed by a viewer to e.g. only load resources visible above the fold and absolutely no external JS. With general web content prerendering is pretty dangerous and you certainly cannot do it with say more than 1 doc at a time because it may use arbitrary bandwidth and CPU. That allows for instant feeling loading of p…

You're not "combining" standards though. As other comments pointed out, this is not a subset of html. It's a separate spec, based on a subset of html, which is different enough that it's not quite compatible. For example, what's with the amp-prefixed tags? Why amp-img instead of img with data-amp- attributes?

You also didn't address my first point: If you're building this for people who don't make the effort right now, why would they suddenly make a seemingly bigger effort to support something they haven't even heard of before today?

Post reply on HN