CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP
timkadlec.com
CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP
#2The proposal: http://yoavweiss.github.io/ContentPerformancePolicy/
Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP
#3Just use pure HTML/CSS and the web sites will fly by comparison.
Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP
#4This was first published last February, and the top comment was from a Googler who's involved with the AMP project:
> Love this. Not sure by coincidence, but the AMP team has been playing around with the same thing under literally the same name. We should meet up some time and discuss details. Not sure it would be an alternative, but rather a complementary thing.
I wonder what ever came of that.
Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP
#5This is very interesting and I don't want to detract from that .
However, pointing out that for a (large?) portion of us, CPP means "C Plus Plus" so I was confused for a few seconds.
Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP
#6This is very interesting and I don't want to detract from that . However, pointing out that for a (large?) portion of us, CPP means "C Plus Plus" so I was confused for a few seconds.
Or C Pre-Processor.
Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP
#7Isn't there a better alternative to an abbreviation that's already widely used in the software engineering context?
Re: CPP: A Standardized Alternative to AMP
#8Just use pure HTML/CSS and the web sites will fly by comparison.
HTML/CSS are slow. The true way is ".txt"
Edit: I mean this as a sort of lazy way of making a reductio. I don't think .txt is better than HTML/CSS for pages (and I hope that's obvious). I also don't think having no JS is a good idea.
I believe in progressive enhancement, and to a first approximation, I think that all websites have at least one feature that they could implement in JS that would be "a good thing".