Implement AMP Project framework

thumped

Well-known member
https://www.ampproject.org/

The Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) Project is an initiative to improve the mobile web and enhance the distribution ecosystem. If content is fast, flexible and beautiful, including compelling and effective ads, we can preserve the open web publishing model as well as the revenue streams so important to the sustainability of quality publishing.

AMP HTML is a new way to make web pages that are optimized to load instantly on users’ mobile devices. It is designed to support smart caching, predictable performance, and modern, beautiful mobile content. Since AMP HTML is built on existing web technologies, and not a template based system, publishers continue to host their own content, innovate on their user experiences, and flexibly integrate their advertising and business models -- all within a technical architecture optimized for speed and performance.
 
Upvote 197
Can you pass along the fix by chance? All of our amp pages are now disappearing due to this.

I could be wrong but the problem here is that this implementation of AMP is making a lot of assumptions about the view. Imo, an AMP theme should be specifically coded. There are pieces of code I'm not sure how they'd get into the view, perhaps built with the default theme in mind.

Its on my plate to look into what bd cache does to the views, what code it edits etc, but this has nothing to do with UI.X, but rather the specific implementation of this amp system.

Midpost, I looked around and Mike posted this:

Realistically, if we were to try to implement this, you'd likely be looking at an entirely differently styled page because:
  • Markup limits and changes (see more below)
  • Limits to some CSS rules (such as overflow)
  • Limits of CSS length and inclusion method (50,000 bytes and inlined)
One sizable issue is the fact that <img> tags (and all other embeds) require explicit dimensions, which is generally something we don't track. Similarly, media embeds are often done a bit differently, though if they're just iframes they might be ok.

By way of an example, here's a blog entry: http://blog.luxuryrestaurantguide.com/2016/03/03/thefutureoffood3dprinting/

Here's the AMP version of it: http://blog.luxuryrestaurantguide.com/2016/03/03/thefutureoffood3dprinting/amp/

If you accept that it's going to be a very stripped down version of the page and potentially missing some of the standard components you'd see in posts (particularly if there's any sort of more advanced/interactive features added; spoilers would probably be a good example), then it may be doable, but it would still be a significant feature to add (likely requiring a different "view" type entirely).

Which essentially means you shouldn't try to shove a complex forum theme into Amp, thats literally what Amp is trying to avoid.

So, its not something that I could pass as a fix since well by nature of AMP its going to have some limitations and restrictions. I'm not even sure if its something we want to support as its a hack.

ETA: It'd be like @Arty 's email customizer trying to push the entirety of XenForo into an email. Instead, Arty made a new template and pulled variables out of the theme. This imo is proper, and how Amp should be handled.
 
I could be wrong but the problem here is that this implementation of AMP is making a lot of assumptions about the view. Imo, an AMP theme should be specifically coded. There are pieces of code I'm not sure how they'd get into the view, perhaps built with the default theme in mind.

Its on my plate to look into what bd cache does to the views, what code it edits etc, but this has nothing to do with UI.X, but rather the specific implementation of this amp system.

Midpost, I looked around and Mike posted this:



Which essentially means you shouldn't try to shove a complex forum theme into Amp, thats literally what Amp is trying to avoid.

So, its not something that I could pass as a fix since well by nature of AMP its going to have some limitations and restrictions. I'm not even sure if its something we want to support as its a hack.

So what changed between the last update and this one? Before this UI.X update everything was working great, barring a few styling issues that I could live with.
 
So what changed between the last update and this one? Before this UI.X update everything was working great, barring a few styling issues that I could live with.
Ah I suppose the styling issues are what I'm referring to.

The AMP validator is giving 20 errors for that page
Code:
The attribute '"' may not appear in tag 'em'.
Do you know if this error gives any context? View/url, line in source code, etc. Appreciate the help!
 
It's probably best to take the specific troubleshooting of an add-on and a third-party theme to a different thread or maybe a separate ticket with ThemeHouse, rather than continuing in the general AMP suggestion thread.
 
Do the AMPed pages replace the normal pages in search results? Essentially the AMPed pages are just a super light skin?
Both get indexed and if there's an AMP page available, that page gets served to applicable users. AMP pages are supposed to be super light and held to a tight spec, yeah. No javascript, constrained images, etc.
 
I see there are zero ads on the AMP version. Interesting that G would push something that doesn't support advertisements considering that's how they, and their Adsense publishers earn their living.

Am I missing something?

It supports ads. We run ads on each of our sites that use AMP
 
Further discussion related to a specific add-on should take place in the resource thread, if there is one, or elsewhere - not in a suggestion thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom