Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Cache is part of AMP spec. What author seems to refer to is only a 2/3 of AMP spec - Subset of HTML and JS library.

Since the beginning AMP team was clear that AMP is not very useful without cache.

I do agree with all of the concerns raised, but wanted to point this out as to not get sidestepped from the main discussion.

https://www.alexkras.com/i-had-lunch-with-google-amp-team/ https://www.ampproject.org/learn/overview/




> Since the beginning AMP team was clear that AMP is not very useful without cache.

I don't see that at all. Even just calling it a "specification" is misleading in the worst ways. You don't need a spec for caching. Nor do you need a spec to tell you that you shouldn't include a ton of CSS and JS. Nor was it ever the plan of Google to actually see others implement this spec.


Actually, the IETF would often issue BCPs to go along with RFCs, because people do need to be told the right way to deploy things in the presence of foot-guns.


But a important point is that you don't get to pick the cache. The website linking to the AMP resource chooses and currently that will always be Google.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: