“it is not acceptable to display a page that carries only third-party branding on what is actually a Google URL”
That seems like an odd position to take. The early Web was filled with people hosting their own content on their ISP using Apache’s /~username feature.
that makes sense. i think the point is that when users click in a link from a google search result, the lack of google branding on an amp page may give the impression that the user has left the google bubble, when in fact they haven’t.
“it is not acceptable to display a page that carries only third-party branding on what is actually a Google URL”
That seems like an odd position to take. The early Web was filled with people hosting their own content on their ISP using Apache’s /~username feature.
you consider /~username to be an “apache URL” in the same way https://google.com/ is a google URL? or am i misunderstanding?
He considers foobar.com/~username a foobar.com URL, in the same way that the article considers google.com/amp/webpage a Google URL.
that makes sense. i think the point is that when users click in a link from a google search result, the lack of google branding on an amp page may give the impression that the user has left the google bubble, when in fact they haven’t.