Because, as you have repeatedly shown you already know, AMP pages are a constrained HTML that supports safe prerendering. Why ask a question you already know the answer to?
> AMP pages are a constrained HTML that supports safe prerendering
Then they're not HTML, are they? As other commenters have pointed out, nobody is using the constrained set of AMP as their main page, precisely because it's not "just HTML". (And specifically, Google controls which subset of HTML this is.)
A square has four sides that are equal length. Does that make it not a rectangle?
> As other commenters have pointed out, nobody is using the constrained set of AMP as their main page
People don't use squares where they need oblong rectangles, but that doesn't mean squares are not rectangles.
> And specifically, Google controls which subset of HTML this is.
No, the technical steering committee of the AMP project at the OpenJS Foundation determines that. Most of the members of that committee do not work for Google.
> People don't use squares where they need oblong rectangles, but that doesn't mean squares are not rectangles.
You're omitting the context of that quote for trite point-scoring. If I was advertised a browser that "supported HTML" I would very reasonably expect that it had a reasonable set of features, perhaps score well on compatibility benchmarks, and in general make an effort to conform to the relevant standards. If all it did was render <p> tags it would still be technically correct (it supports HTML!) but I would rightfully be less than pleased.
> No, the technical steering committee of the AMP project at the OpenJS Foundation determines that. Most of the members of that committee do not work for Google.
As I have pointed out to you previously (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20731535; I regret the typo), Google has extremely strong control over the Technical Steering Committee; while you are again correct to claim that they do not have a majority position, it would require unanimous coalition of every other member to oppose them.
AMP is not a browser. It is HTML markup. Likewise, nobody claimed that AMP contains all of HTML. By deliberately misconstruing what AMP is, you are the one who is fruitlessly engaging in trite point scoring.
> it would require unanimous coalition of every other member to oppose them.
As I have also pointed out before, their goal is to have even fewer Google members on that committee. Already, anything that benefits only Google would be shot down. Compare to Apple News, which is controlled entirely by Apple or FBIA, controlled entirely by Facebook, or RSS which is no longer updated at all.
Nowhere did I say it was: I was providing an example of a case where technically classifying something correctly may not be what people expect, except I used HTML in my example instead of shapes in an attempt to connect better to the topic at hand.
> nobody claimed that AMP contains all of HTML
The (now somewhat distant) ancestor claimed that AMP is powerful enough to use as essentially a replacement for HTML, and that publishers can use this subset exclusively for all their content. To which I (and others) have counterclaimed that it is not, because we have not seen publishers move to it, which means it is lacking something that HTML is giving them.
> By deliberately misconstruing what AMP is
That was not my intention, and I apologize if I came off that way.
> As I have also pointed out before, their goal is to have even fewer Google members on that committee. Already, anything that benefits only Google would be shot down.
Perhaps you know more about this than I do, but I have seen little movement in this direction or confirmation that Google is divesting themselves of control here.
> Compare to Apple News, which is controlled entirely by Apple or FBIA, controlled entirely by Facebook, or RSS which is no longer updated at all.
You keep bringing this up, but I don't see widespread complaints about Apple News or Facebook Instant Articles (and RSS is beloved to almost everyone I know). I think the key point here is intent: these sources are very clear in what they're doing, how they're doing, and I don't think they feel as "forced" to adopt it.