|
|
|
|
|
|
by matchu
3428 days ago
|
|
|
Be sure to read Paul Bakaus's response, "Why AMP caches exist", to hear both sides of the issue. https://amphtml.wordpress.com/2017/01/13/why-amp-caches-exis... (Though, actually, it's only a response in spirit; Bakaus's article was posted about a week earlier than Miessler's.) I think the problem with the AMP cache model is that, because you need to link directly to the cached URL, you commit to exactly one cache provider. If Bing were to also implement their own validated AMP cache for Bing search results, you can't have one link point to both; you're either AMPed in Google results or in Bing results, and, by being marginally bigger, Google wins all of the pie. That's no good. How might we change the AMP standard, or the trust model around AMP caches, to get the same performance wins while still enabling competition? |
|
|