Only AMP pages or non-AMP pages + AMP pages
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Currently, we are trying to implement AMP to our current website. Non-AMP version is already ready and works as it supposed to be. Question is: 'which one would be better: to change all current pages to AMP or creating additional AMP pages and put canonical link to original pages?'
mobile amp-html
edited Nov 8 at 10:50
Chris Aby Antony
70938
asked Nov 8 at 9:26
Murad Zulfugarov
5126
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Currently, we are trying to implement AMP to our current website. Non-AMP version is already ready and works as it supposed to be. Question is: 'which one would be better: to change all current pages to AMP or creating additional AMP pages and put canonical link to original pages?'
mobile amp-html
edited Nov 8 at 10:50
Chris Aby Antony
70938
asked Nov 8 at 9:26
Murad Zulfugarov
5126
This depends on what's easier for you, and what makes sense in your situation. Do you use a lot of custom JavaScript on your site? If so it might not make sense to make the entire page AMP. If the answer is no then exploring the option of making the entire site AMP compliant may be appealing for future maintenance. This is ultimately something you need to ask yourself.
– James Ives
Nov 8 at 19:11
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Currently, we are trying to implement AMP to our current website. Non-AMP version is already ready and works as it supposed to be. Question is: 'which one would be better: to change all current pages to AMP or creating additional AMP pages and put canonical link to original pages?'
mobile amp-html
edited Nov 8 at 10:50
Chris Aby Antony
70938
asked Nov 8 at 9:26
Murad Zulfugarov
5126
Currently, we are trying to implement AMP to our current website. Non-AMP version is already ready and works as it supposed to be. Question is: 'which one would be better: to change all current pages to AMP or creating additional AMP pages and put canonical link to original pages?'
mobile amp-html
mobile amp-html
edited Nov 8 at 10:50
Chris Aby Antony
70938
asked Nov 8 at 9:26
Murad Zulfugarov
5126
edited Nov 8 at 10:50
Chris Aby Antony
70938
asked Nov 8 at 9:26
Murad Zulfugarov
5126
edited Nov 8 at 10:50
Chris Aby Antony
70938
edited Nov 8 at 10:50
Chris Aby Antony
70938
edited Nov 8 at 10:50
Chris Aby Antony
70938
70938
asked Nov 8 at 9:26
Murad Zulfugarov
5126
asked Nov 8 at 9:26
Murad Zulfugarov
5126
asked Nov 8 at 9:26
Murad Zulfugarov
5126
5126
This depends on what's easier for you, and what makes sense in your situation. Do you use a lot of custom JavaScript on your site? If so it might not make sense to make the entire page AMP. If the answer is no then exploring the option of making the entire site AMP compliant may be appealing for future maintenance. This is ultimately something you need to ask yourself.
– James Ives
Nov 8 at 19:11
add a comment |
This depends on what's easier for you, and what makes sense in your situation. Do you use a lot of custom JavaScript on your site? If so it might not make sense to make the entire page AMP. If the answer is no then exploring the option of making the entire site AMP compliant may be appealing for future maintenance. This is ultimately something you need to ask yourself.
– James Ives
Nov 8 at 19:11
This depends on what's easier for you, and what makes sense in your situation. Do you use a lot of custom JavaScript on your site? If so it might not make sense to make the entire page AMP. If the answer is no then exploring the option of making the entire site AMP compliant may be appealing for future maintenance. This is ultimately something you need to ask yourself.
– James Ives
Nov 8 at 19:11
This depends on what's easier for you, and what makes sense in your situation. Do you use a lot of custom JavaScript on your site? If so it might not make sense to make the entire page AMP. If the answer is no then exploring the option of making the entire site AMP compliant may be appealing for future maintenance. This is ultimately something you need to ask yourself.
– James Ives
Nov 8 at 19:11
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
There is no doubt that AMP is fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms. It can run on desktop and mobile both. But AMP is basically for mobile. I think that we should run separate for desktop (non-amp) and mobile (amp).
In general we support the latest two versions of major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, Opera and UC Browser. We support desktop, phone, tablet and the web view version of these respective browsers.
Beyond that, the core AMP library and built-in elements should aim for very wide browser support and we accept fixes for all browsers with market share greater than 1 percent.
In particular, we try to maintain "it might not be perfect but isn't broken"-support for the Android 4.0 system browser and Chrome 28+ on phones.
answered Nov 9 at 10:14
Bachcha Singh
2,16921025
Thank you for your response
– Murad Zulfugarov
Nov 9 at 11:51
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
There is no doubt that AMP is fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms. It can run on desktop and mobile both. But AMP is basically for mobile. I think that we should run separate for desktop (non-amp) and mobile (amp).
In general we support the latest two versions of major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, Opera and UC Browser. We support desktop, phone, tablet and the web view version of these respective browsers.
Beyond that, the core AMP library and built-in elements should aim for very wide browser support and we accept fixes for all browsers with market share greater than 1 percent.
In particular, we try to maintain "it might not be perfect but isn't broken"-support for the Android 4.0 system browser and Chrome 28+ on phones.
answered Nov 9 at 10:14
Bachcha Singh
2,16921025
Thank you for your response
– Murad Zulfugarov
Nov 9 at 11:51
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
There is no doubt that AMP is fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms. It can run on desktop and mobile both. But AMP is basically for mobile. I think that we should run separate for desktop (non-amp) and mobile (amp).
In general we support the latest two versions of major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, Opera and UC Browser. We support desktop, phone, tablet and the web view version of these respective browsers.
Beyond that, the core AMP library and built-in elements should aim for very wide browser support and we accept fixes for all browsers with market share greater than 1 percent.
In particular, we try to maintain "it might not be perfect but isn't broken"-support for the Android 4.0 system browser and Chrome 28+ on phones.
answered Nov 9 at 10:14
Bachcha Singh
2,16921025
Thank you for your response
– Murad Zulfugarov
Nov 9 at 11:51
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
up vote
2
down vote
accepted
There is no doubt that AMP is fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms. It can run on desktop and mobile both. But AMP is basically for mobile. I think that we should run separate for desktop (non-amp) and mobile (amp).
In general we support the latest two versions of major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, Opera and UC Browser. We support desktop, phone, tablet and the web view version of these respective browsers.
Beyond that, the core AMP library and built-in elements should aim for very wide browser support and we accept fixes for all browsers with market share greater than 1 percent.
In particular, we try to maintain "it might not be perfect but isn't broken"-support for the Android 4.0 system browser and Chrome 28+ on phones.
answered Nov 9 at 10:14
Bachcha Singh
2,16921025
There is no doubt that AMP is fast, beautiful and high-performing across devices and distribution platforms. It can run on desktop and mobile both. But AMP is basically for mobile. I think that we should run separate for desktop (non-amp) and mobile (amp).
In general we support the latest two versions of major browsers like Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari, Opera and UC Browser. We support desktop, phone, tablet and the web view version of these respective browsers.
Beyond that, the core AMP library and built-in elements should aim for very wide browser support and we accept fixes for all browsers with market share greater than 1 percent.
In particular, we try to maintain "it might not be perfect but isn't broken"-support for the Android 4.0 system browser and Chrome 28+ on phones.
answered Nov 9 at 10:14
Bachcha Singh
2,16921025
answered Nov 9 at 10:14
Bachcha Singh
2,16921025
answered Nov 9 at 10:14
Bachcha Singh
2,16921025
answered Nov 9 at 10:14
Bachcha Singh
2,16921025
2,16921025
Thank you for your response
– Murad Zulfugarov
Nov 9 at 11:51
add a comment |
Thank you for your response
– Murad Zulfugarov
Nov 9 at 11:51
Thank you for your response
– Murad Zulfugarov
Nov 9 at 11:51
Thank you for your response
– Murad Zulfugarov
Nov 9 at 11:51
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53204791%2fonly-amp-pages-or-non-amp-pages-amp-pages%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
This depends on what's easier for you, and what makes sense in your situation. Do you use a lot of custom JavaScript on your site? If so it might not make sense to make the entire page AMP. If the answer is no then exploring the option of making the entire site AMP compliant may be appealing for future maintenance. This is ultimately something you need to ask yourself.
– James Ives
Nov 8 at 19:11