Canonical content and AMP

--001a113540d86cf0990530d24bed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

At the F2F in March I was concerned that the best progressive web apps were
generally mobile-only, and I=E2=80=99m getting a similar feeling about AMP.

I=E2=80=99m wondering whether TAG have a view on the use of `m.` sites.  Fr=
om an
architectural perspective `m.` is a bad thing, surely.  But I can=E2=80=99t=
 build
my desktop webpages using AMP - because I would lose essential features
like reader comments, so I'm stuck serving (at least) two copies of the
same document.

HTML sandbox / Content Performance Policy seems like a better approach, but
I=E2=80=99m wondering whether I=E2=80=99m alone in thinking that a) technol=
ogies like AMP
can promote duplication of content in multiple formats in different
locations on the web, and 2) that=E2=80=99s a bad thing.

Seems to me that we've spent the last few years gradually moving away from
m., and we're now heading back towards that territory.  Is this a conscious
recognition that One-Responsive-To-Rule-Them-All was a bad idea?

--001a113540d86cf0990530d24bed
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">At the F2F in March I was concerned that the best progress=
ive web apps were generally mobile-only, and I=E2=80=99m getting a similar =
feeling about AMP.<div><br></div><div>I=E2=80=99m wondering whether TAG hav=
e a view on the use of `m.` sites.=C2=A0 From an architectural perspective =
`m.` is a bad thing, surely.=C2=A0 But I can=E2=80=99t build my desktop web=
pages using AMP - because I would lose essential features like reader comme=
nts, so I&#39;m stuck serving (at least) two copies of the same document.</=
div><div><br></div><div>HTML sandbox / Content Performance Policy seems lik=
e a better approach, but I=E2=80=99m wondering whether I=E2=80=99m alone in=
 thinking that a) technologies like AMP can promote duplication of content =
in multiple formats in different locations on the web, and 2) that=E2=80=99=
s a bad thing.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Seems to me that we&#39;ve spen=
t the last few years gradually moving away from m., and we&#39;re now headi=
ng back towards that territory.=C2=A0 Is this a conscious recognition that =
One-Responsive-To-Rule-Them-All was a bad idea?</div></div>

--001a113540d86cf0990530d24bed--