yep, but then the perf guarantees are far weaker. hmm this is an interesting one.
-
-
Replying to @lawnsea @cramforce
The real issue is AMP circumvents this issue by centralizing allowed JS through approved (but nonstandard) WCs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
You can't make AMP work with just platform features, and Google isn't willing to trust "just anyone" with the power of JS, so here we are
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The answer really cannot be "we trust Google to vet all JS that works in this context".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wycats @cramforce
right. nor is the answer "eventually all sites are amp" i think the amp team is acting in good faith. i wish there was more transparency.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
specifically around a roadmap to get to a world where lons-cool-amp framework can get the same treatment in the serp
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @lawnsea @cramforce
There are scattered proposals. I'd contribute to a roadmap that Google agreed had that goal.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I'll try to get the diverse efforts written up in comprehensible form.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cramforce @lawnsea
Are there enough total efforts to allow non-AMP tech to appear in the carousel in the medium term?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
(with some solution for the kind of thing that centralized web components solve today?)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Either way, please let me know when you do. I'm very interested in making Glimmer a good citizen of this future world.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.