Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://writing.exchange/users/ernie/statuses/112463754746606712">Ernie Smith (ernie@writing.exchange)'s status on Sunday, 19-May-2024 09:32:53 JST</a><a href="https://writing.exchange/@ernie" title="ernie@writing.exchange"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/15731-48-20221114001825.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Ernie Smith" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Ernie Smith</a></section><article><p>I feel like people are so set against Google that they will not even agree that Google has good ideas sometimes.</p><p>Dealing with people frothing at the mouth because you dared defend something about AMP, for example, is tiring.</p><p>Just admit what it is: like every other big company, a mix of great and questionable.</p><p>Meanwhile I'm going to honor good ideas no matter the source.</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/3110856#notice-6162312">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-05-19T09:32:53+09:00" title="Sunday, 19-May-2024 09:32:53 JST">about a year ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://writing.exchange/@ernie/112463754746606712" rel="external" title="Sent from writing.exchange via ActivityPub">writing.exchange</a></span></span><a href="https://writing.exchange/@ernie/112463754746606712">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/2659461">chrismorganNo, I don’t understand why you brought it up.It was Google trying to shove through something they’d invented, using their market power as leverage. You don’t make good standards like that.It was also not at all about standardising HTML email—it didn’t improve anything in that way, except insofar as the AMP part being chosen implies that the client has decent HTML support. AMP for Email is purely about dynamic content in emails.And the very way that each provider that supports AMP for Email has required whitelisting of each sender shows there’s something extremely rotten about the entire thing.1 point by shortformblogYour personal hang-up about AMP is separate from my point</a></label><br><a href="https://cdn.masto.host/writing/media_attachments/files/112/463/745/207/224/761/original/fc093d32a937e545.jpg" rel="external">https://cdn.masto.host/writing/media_attachments/files/112/463/745/207/224/761/original/fc093d32a937e545.jpg</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Ernie Smith (ernie@writing.exchange)'s status on Sunday, 19-May-2024 09:32:53 JST Ernie Smith
I feel like people are so set against Google that they will not even agree that Google has good ideas sometimes.
Dealing with people frothing at the mouth because you dared defend something about AMP, for example, is tiring.
Just admit what it is: like every other big company, a mix of great and questionable.
Meanwhile I'm going to honor good ideas no matter the source.
In conversationabout a year ago from writing.exchangepermalink
Attachments
1. chrismorgan No, I don’t understand why you brought it up. It was Google trying to shove through something they’d invented, using their market power as leverage. You don’t make good standards like that. It was also not at all about standardising HTML email—it didn’t improve anything in that way, except insofar as the AMP part being chosen implies that the client has decent HTML support. AMP for Email is purely about dynamic content in emails. And the very way that each provider that supports AMP for Email has required whitelisting of each sender shows there’s something extremely rotten about the entire thing. 1 point by shortformblog Your personal hang-up about AMP is separate from my point
  https://cdn.masto.host/writing/media_attachments/files/112/463/745/207/224/761/original/fc093d32a937e545.jpg

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice