71–80 of 332 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With AMP they are trying to become the web.
What does that even mean? AMP is built on WebComponents, which are an existing web standard. That's no less standard than anything else using custom elements.
Nowhere in the standard "higher search ranking on google inc" is mentioned as a must have feature. Yet it is the only feature anyone care about when discussing adoption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've had a time when standards were at the forefront, between the death of the last browser monoculture, and the establishment of the current one. It was good while it lasted.
if you don't specify a timeframe you can't be contested and therefore your nostalgia reads like it is for a time that never existed except in your mind
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome#/media/File:Web_...
[2]: https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that even mean? AMP is built on WebComponents, which are an existing web standard. That's no less standard than anything else using custom elements.
amp is a self serving standard. Nowhere in the standard "higher search ranking on google inc" is mentioned as a must have feature. Yet it is the only feature anyone care about when discussing adoption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With AMP they are trying to become the web.
What does that even mean? AMP is built on WebComponents, which are an existing web standard. That's no less standard than anything else using custom elements.
At first glance, this seems like a really half baked idea to me. Some immediate thoughts: - Wasn't there a draft spec floating around in the early 00s that tried to accomplish this, but didn't catch on? - Fragments are already used to link to fragments, albeit more author friendly than user friendly I suppose - This won't fly very well with sites that still make use of fragment based navigation, will it? (Believe it…
Like the people at FB who run around thinking how awesome they are for coming up with a new spying technique and what idiots the world is for not recognizing their innovation?
At first glance, this seems like a really half baked idea to me. Some immediate thoughts: - Wasn't there a draft spec floating around in the early 00s that tried to accomplish this, but didn't catch on? - Fragments are already used to link to fragments, albeit more author friendly than user friendly I suppose - This won't fly very well with sites that still make use of fragment based navigation, will it? (Believe it…
> (Believe it or not, I still see new projects use this over the history API!) want to guess which one doesnt need JS, or server-side handling to work?
Almost caught up to the capabilities of Ted Nelsons Xanadu Hypertext System from the mid 20th century.
I was just seeing a documentary about him (the Internet actually) by Werner Herzog. It was the first time I had heard about Xanadu or Ted Nelson. His ideas were quite radical from what I know as the Web. And I got to thinking how the web might have been had Xanadu become mainstream. But then I opened the Wikipedia page on Project Xanadu, it's second paragraph is: > Wired magazine published an article called "The Curs…
At first glance, this seems like a really half baked idea to me. Some immediate thoughts: - Wasn't there a draft spec floating around in the early 00s that tried to accomplish this, but didn't catch on? - Fragments are already used to link to fragments, albeit more author friendly than user friendly I suppose - This won't fly very well with sites that still make use of fragment based navigation, will it? (Believe it…
Honest question: is there a specific person who is smugly grinning about this at google. Like the people at FB who run around thinking how awesome they are for coming up with a new spying technique and what idiots the world is for not recognizing their innovation?
They got used to know exactly what people share and, much more importantly, what people click on email, thanks to gmail rewriting all links to a google track url (while misleading the user by a fake status text on mouse over). When they sum the info of 1. who send it, 2. who clicked on it, 3. what was the email context, they can further classify the page content. (for ads, search ranking, whatever they do today)
But they can't do that on whatsapp, facebook, etc. With this "feature", now they have at least a modicum of context when the page impression show up on their Google Analytics trackers. Did you visit that wikipedia page because of recent news events, or doing homework?
Or, we could just go with occam's razor and believe that a bunch of bored engineers at google decided to simply add a feature completely disconnected from any of their business plans, and spent a few months tweaking a git repo with nothing but a README file... while the actual code review has follow up questions that were left open and merged anyway: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/14... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
