5 ms·

The AMP team is working on the exact opposite, which is adopting Web Packaging [1] that fixes the URL issue you are describing. https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2

The AMP team is working on the exact opposite, which is adopting Web Packaging [1] that fixes the URL issue you are describing. https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/11/13/developer-preview-of-better-amp-urls-in-google-search/ https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/11/13/developer-preview-o... [1] - https://github.com/WICG/webpackage https://github.com/WICG/webpackage

sodosopa 8y ago
AMP has it's own issues: https://www.polemicdigital.com/google-amp-go-to-hell/ https://www.polemicdigital.com/google-amp-go-to-hell/
- jeffjose 8y ago
  Didnt read past the first section since that appears outdated already. AMP Project is run similar to nodejs by adopting an open-governance model. This was first announced here - https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/governance/ https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/governance/ and the went live later that year. https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/amp-projects-new-governance-model-now-in-effect/ https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/amp-projects-new-go... In the link above you can see non-Google decision makers that drive strategy and vision of the project.
  - geofft 8y ago
    > AMP Project is run similar to nodejs by adopting an open-governance model. OK, but the only thing I want out of AMP is for it to not exist. Is there any chance that I can get involved in AMP's open governance with a "stop existing" goal? It is already quite surprising that AMP has gone in the direction of "We'll accept signed webpackages and publish those so we aren't acting as the origin". But my goal is that even this should not need to exist: websites that genuinely load fast on their own, comparable to downloading the webpackage, should be ranked as high as AMP websites. And it's preferable for websites to do that. So there should be no boost for AMP websites, just a boost for fast pages, and if AMP does anything it should just provide guidelines for how to build fast pages. Examples of fast pages include HN and most things published before 1998. At the end of the day AMP exists because it's privileged by Google Search, and AMP is privileged by Google Search because Malte Ubl has whatever amount of influence he does within Google and has convinced them that AMP is a good idea (or other people have decided it's a good idea and have put Malte Ubl in charge of making sure it happens, or whatever). No matter how many non-Google people you put on the steering committee you won't change that. You don't have the internal access to change Google's mind about it. This is like saying that it's okay that I should be happy living in a city that always votes $party because I can get involved in the party. If my personal political views are $opposing_party, that statement is technically true but completely useless.
    - judge2020 8y ago
      > OK, but the only thing I want out of AMP is for it to not exist. Is there any chance that I can get involved in AMP's open governance with a "stop existing" goal? You can choose not to use it. It's just like when you find a project on Git(hub|lab|etc) and it uses a language, tool, or package manager you've never seen before. You either try to work with it or look at other projects. If you don't want to deal with AMP, you can click the link icon at the top of the page, then click the link so that you actually end up on the webpage you wanted to visit. You can't force everyone to adopt the "amp shouldn't exist" model just as much as you can't force "electron shouldn't exist and everyone should write native apps" on others.
      - geofft 8y ago
        1. I do in fact click the link icon. Half the time it takes me to an AMP version of the website (not the google.com/amp version, but example.com/amp/ or something) instead of the full version. 2. Why is it being framed as me forcing everyone to adopt the "AMP shouldn't exist" model, instead of Google forcing everyone to adopt the "AMP should exist" model? 3. You're talking about me as a consumer. As a publisher, I don't want to use AMP, but I want the favorable SERP placement that comes with using AMP. I think that my website satisfies the actual goal behind AMP, of loading fast. But that isn't enough, and I have to use AMP - and force my visitors to either use AMP or click through AMP (making it slower, and defeating the point of everything). As a publisher I'm actually pretty excited about the webpackage stuff (and it'll be straightforward since I'm using a static site generator), but it's still not the same as being able to run a real website that actually loads quickly. 4. None of this answers my question, which is not "How do I, personally, avoid using AMP" but "Does the AMP open governance model, in which people can allegedly become involved in setting the direction of AMP, allow people the opportunity to make AMP cease to exist"? 5. Google's monopoly power in search results and vertical integration makes everything more complicated. Electron does not have monopoly power on native apps, and nobody is giving an artificial boost to native apps that are written in Electron. Any advantage to Electron is due to Electron's own technical merits. My bet is that the majority of people on the AMP advisory committee are primarily there because they need to avoid unfavorable placement on the Google SERP and so they're forced to implement AMP and want to make sure they can still render half-decent web pages using AMP, not because they inherently like AMP.
  - anth_anm 8y ago
    No, I can see that Google presents it as them backing off. Who are the actual decision makers? What percentage are google employees?
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    AMP isn't "run openly" because everything key to Google's business is non-negotiable, and at the end of the day, Google will do what Google wants. This is what I found out when a few of us tried to talk about AMP4Email, where before threatening us with the code of conduct (for bringing up valid security concerns), Malte Ubl admitted that AMP4Email would be implemented however the Gmail team wanted to implement it, and that no amount of community concerns on the GitHub were going to have any say in the matter. The reality is the "open governance" AMP spec means nothing, because as a monopoly, the only AMP cache which actually matters is Google's. And it's implementation is Google's proprietary business, not part of what they allegedly allow open governance of.
    - dbbk 8y ago
      Oh god I'd forgotten about AMP4Email. It's such a blindingly obvious bad idea, and the GitHub response was overwhelmingly negative. They do not care at all.
  - vezycash 8y ago
    How's this different from open source android-proprietary play services and open Chrome-proprietary translate?
  - dmitriid 8y ago
    > AMP Project is run similar to nodejs by adopting an open-governance model I won't believe this until I see the tech lead and the committee go from being totally opaque to actually answering direct questions. So far "after months of research" they can't even provide a description of how working groups are selected, which are the criteria, what exactly they govern and many other things described, e.g. here: https://github.com/ampproject/meta/pull/1#pullrequestreview-156549757 https://github.com/ampproject/meta/pull/1#pullrequestreview-... Or, e.g. they are going to have an AMP4Email working group. For a feature that no one asked for, no one wants, no one was discussed with. How did it get there? Oh "Gmail team said they are going to do it". But yeah, the "Approvers" working group will surely have something to say about this. Riiiight.
dane-pgp 8y ago
As a nice side effect of Google pushing Web Packaging, we get one step closer to having web apps that are signed with an offline key and served with a clear version number. This would mean you could have at least a TOFU security model, where a web app that you trust can't be replaced (without you knowing) by an insecure version you haven't seen before. Add some binary transparency [1] logging on top of that, and it might be possible to make browser-based JavaScript crypto almost as secure as the equivalent desktop app. [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Binary_Transparency https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Binary_Transparency
- zozbot123 8y ago
  You could do this quite simply by requesting trusted apps to be identified by Named Information (ni:// or nih://) URIs (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6920 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6920 ) using a digest algorithm of sufficient strength. But the ability to "seamlessly" replace web apps is something that many websites would insist on, I think. Of course ni:// and nih:// can be applied to documents as well. They work on the IPFS model, where you enter some digest of the desired content as your URI (it's actually a URN, not a URL!) and then it's the user agent's job to fetch it from wherever, perhaps in a decentralized way.
clhodapp 8y ago
From the parent: > ... then Chrome gets to decide what name to show you in the address bar - potentially a name that has very little to do with the actual location of the document That doesn't seem to be the opposite of what the parent post is describing, it seems to be an implementation of it.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  How so? The web package comes from the real source you see. The only reason Google needed to serve the content from its own domain is because of security and limitation of content delivery. But with this, they can serve you a "package" that's identical to what you get from the source.
  - clhodapp 8y ago
    Common techniques like relative paths will allow the proxy-cache to see much deeper into a site than the end user is aware. The url bar might say that you're on some site you trust but your traffic may all still be openly readable by Google (or some other proxy). Of course, Google is always going to know about links that users click in its search result list and a huge number of sites blindly run Google (or other third party) scripts anyway but this opens up a new vector for Google to see into your traffic.

sodosopa 8y ago

AMP has it's own issues: https://www.polemicdigital.com/google-amp-go-to-hell/ https://www.polemicdigital.com/google-amp-go-to-hell/

jeffjose 8y ago
Didnt read past the first section since that appears outdated already. AMP Project is run similar to nodejs by adopting an open-governance model. This was first announced here - https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/governance/ https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/09/18/governance/ and the went live later that year. https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/amp-projects-new-governance-model-now-in-effect/ https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2018/11/30/amp-projects-new-go... In the link above you can see non-Google decision makers that drive strategy and vision of the project.
- geofft 8y ago
  > AMP Project is run similar to nodejs by adopting an open-governance model. OK, but the only thing I want out of AMP is for it to not exist. Is there any chance that I can get involved in AMP's open governance with a "stop existing" goal? It is already quite surprising that AMP has gone in the direction of "We'll accept signed webpackages and publish those so we aren't acting as the origin". But my goal is that even this should not need to exist: websites that genuinely load fast on their own, comparable to downloading the webpackage, should be ranked as high as AMP websites. And it's preferable for websites to do that. So there should be no boost for AMP websites, just a boost for fast pages, and if AMP does anything it should just provide guidelines for how to build fast pages. Examples of fast pages include HN and most things published before 1998. At the end of the day AMP exists because it's privileged by Google Search, and AMP is privileged by Google Search because Malte Ubl has whatever amount of influence he does within Google and has convinced them that AMP is a good idea (or other people have decided it's a good idea and have put Malte Ubl in charge of making sure it happens, or whatever). No matter how many non-Google people you put on the steering committee you won't change that. You don't have the internal access to change Google's mind about it. This is like saying that it's okay that I should be happy living in a city that always votes $party because I can get involved in the party. If my personal political views are $opposing_party, that statement is technically true but completely useless.
  - judge2020 8y ago
    > OK, but the only thing I want out of AMP is for it to not exist. Is there any chance that I can get involved in AMP's open governance with a "stop existing" goal? You can choose not to use it. It's just like when you find a project on Git(hub|lab|etc) and it uses a language, tool, or package manager you've never seen before. You either try to work with it or look at other projects. If you don't want to deal with AMP, you can click the link icon at the top of the page, then click the link so that you actually end up on the webpage you wanted to visit. You can't force everyone to adopt the "amp shouldn't exist" model just as much as you can't force "electron shouldn't exist and everyone should write native apps" on others.
    - geofft 8y ago
      1. I do in fact click the link icon. Half the time it takes me to an AMP version of the website (not the google.com/amp version, but example.com/amp/ or something) instead of the full version. 2. Why is it being framed as me forcing everyone to adopt the "AMP shouldn't exist" model, instead of Google forcing everyone to adopt the "AMP should exist" model? 3. You're talking about me as a consumer. As a publisher, I don't want to use AMP, but I want the favorable SERP placement that comes with using AMP. I think that my website satisfies the actual goal behind AMP, of loading fast. But that isn't enough, and I have to use AMP - and force my visitors to either use AMP or click through AMP (making it slower, and defeating the point of everything). As a publisher I'm actually pretty excited about the webpackage stuff (and it'll be straightforward since I'm using a static site generator), but it's still not the same as being able to run a real website that actually loads quickly. 4. None of this answers my question, which is not "How do I, personally, avoid using AMP" but "Does the AMP open governance model, in which people can allegedly become involved in setting the direction of AMP, allow people the opportunity to make AMP cease to exist"? 5. Google's monopoly power in search results and vertical integration makes everything more complicated. Electron does not have monopoly power on native apps, and nobody is giving an artificial boost to native apps that are written in Electron. Any advantage to Electron is due to Electron's own technical merits. My bet is that the majority of people on the AMP advisory committee are primarily there because they need to avoid unfavorable placement on the Google SERP and so they're forced to implement AMP and want to make sure they can still render half-decent web pages using AMP, not because they inherently like AMP.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  No, I can see that Google presents it as them backing off. Who are the actual decision makers? What percentage are google employees?
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  AMP isn't "run openly" because everything key to Google's business is non-negotiable, and at the end of the day, Google will do what Google wants. This is what I found out when a few of us tried to talk about AMP4Email, where before threatening us with the code of conduct (for bringing up valid security concerns), Malte Ubl admitted that AMP4Email would be implemented however the Gmail team wanted to implement it, and that no amount of community concerns on the GitHub were going to have any say in the matter. The reality is the "open governance" AMP spec means nothing, because as a monopoly, the only AMP cache which actually matters is Google's. And it's implementation is Google's proprietary business, not part of what they allegedly allow open governance of.
  - dbbk 8y ago
    Oh god I'd forgotten about AMP4Email. It's such a blindingly obvious bad idea, and the GitHub response was overwhelmingly negative. They do not care at all.
- vezycash 8y ago
  How's this different from open source android-proprietary play services and open Chrome-proprietary translate?
- dmitriid 8y ago
  > AMP Project is run similar to nodejs by adopting an open-governance model I won't believe this until I see the tech lead and the committee go from being totally opaque to actually answering direct questions. So far "after months of research" they can't even provide a description of how working groups are selected, which are the criteria, what exactly they govern and many other things described, e.g. here: https://github.com/ampproject/meta/pull/1#pullrequestreview-156549757 https://github.com/ampproject/meta/pull/1#pullrequestreview-... Or, e.g. they are going to have an AMP4Email working group. For a feature that no one asked for, no one wants, no one was discussed with. How did it get there? Oh "Gmail team said they are going to do it". But yeah, the "Approvers" working group will surely have something to say about this. Riiiight.

dane-pgp 8y ago

As a nice side effect of Google pushing Web Packaging, we get one step closer to having web apps that are signed with an offline key and served with a clear version number. This would mean you could have at least a TOFU security model, where a web app that you trust can't be replaced (without you knowing) by an insecure version you haven't seen before. Add some binary transparency [1] logging on top of that, and it might be possible to make browser-based JavaScript crypto almost as secure as the equivalent desktop app. [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Binary_Transparency https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Binary_Transparency

zozbot123 8y ago
You could do this quite simply by requesting trusted apps to be identified by Named Information (ni:// or nih://) URIs (see https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6920 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6920 ) using a digest algorithm of sufficient strength. But the ability to "seamlessly" replace web apps is something that many websites would insist on, I think. Of course ni:// and nih:// can be applied to documents as well. They work on the IPFS model, where you enter some digest of the desired content as your URI (it's actually a URN, not a URL!) and then it's the user agent's job to fetch it from wherever, perhaps in a decentralized way.

clhodapp 8y ago

From the parent: > ... then Chrome gets to decide what name to show you in the address bar - potentially a name that has very little to do with the actual location of the document That doesn't seem to be the opposite of what the parent post is describing, it seems to be an implementation of it.

ehsankia 8y ago
How so? The web package comes from the real source you see. The only reason Google needed to serve the content from its own domain is because of security and limitation of content delivery. But with this, they can serve you a "package" that's identical to what you get from the source.
- clhodapp 8y ago
  Common techniques like relative paths will allow the proxy-cache to see much deeper into a site than the end user is aware. The url bar might say that you're on some site you trust but your traffic may all still be openly readable by Google (or some other proxy). Of course, Google is always going to know about links that users click in its search result list and a huge number of sites blindly run Google (or other third party) scripts anyway but this opens up a new vector for Google to see into your traffic.