Hacker News Reader

Comment by rubyn00bie | Hacker News Reader

This feels like a gigantic separation of concerns violation. Why the hell should amp have anything to do with email? What are the advantages over just normal markup besides proprietary features each vendor shovels on-top of the "open" standard?

... sigh AMP is the one thing I really, really, despise from Google and it just continues to spread.

View on HN

It looks like they're leveraging the safety aspect of AMP here. IIUC, the subset of HTML behavior AMP enables is generally considered to be "safe." If that property can hold, AMP-enabled email can allow for the benefits of live HTML in the client without the drawbacks of the surprises that can occur from arbitrary HTML execution.

Does AMP not allow JavaScript?

AMP gates the JavaScript it allows and requires asynchronous evaluation. 3rd party JS is also allowed, but it has to be in a sandboxed iframe which, in a browser at least, would guard some of the user's state from exfiltration attacks (it's unclear to me if the iframe feature is available in email AMP).

https://www.ampproject.org/learn/about-how/

Emails only support a subset of AMP, so iframes and any form of JavaScript (other than the whitelisted AMP components) are not allowed.

Google uses increased security as an excuse and tactic to trick you into using something that you would otherwise have zero interest in.

They wave the banana to distract, but the gorilla comes with it.

>This feels like a gigantic separation of concerns violation.

Reminds me of QUIC/HTTP3. Seems like the way things work at Google nowadays.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com