But it's come out controlled by the major search engine, that will promote and highlight pages in it's search rankings if you adhere to their new "open" standard.
It may still be good, but leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
I think this is an important issue because the HTML spec is crazy long and it would be awesome for new technologies (say a new desktop GUI library or whatever) to be able to say "we allow and will interpret this subset some HTML" without committing to the entire byzantine spec.
We need a name for this and since it's HTML5 with stuff removed we can call it HTML5--, so HTML4 ;)
I'm thinking more of cases like letting people write some HTML in a local notetaking program or something like that -- what's a nice subset of tags you should give them so they can make text look good, but doesn't commit you to supporting the lovecraftian being that's the entire HTML spec?
Also your last line made me laugh. Nice delivery=)
As an example, w3c got together to say solid HTTPS websites get a green color in the URL bar. Banks, etc get a higher, more highlighted green color for a special class of certificates. These are open standards that everyone agreed on.
I hope this makes it more clear why AMP is not a open standard.
Having a new gatekeeper in addition to the standards bodies that we have to get all new features by holds back the Web.
It would be great if we didn't have to worry about performance, I hope WebRender gets us there some day, please do continue your work and hopefully the fact that some subset of news sites aren't using features doesn't hold you back.
In the meantime I'm going to avoid using with(), use requestAnimationFrame to prevent dom thrashing, put my scripts at the end of the body, and do all of the things maybe some day I won't have to do.
Edit: Looks like you updated your comment. Initially it asked who could competing adopters be.