One additional point. This gatekeeping about what email should or should not be is just too much sometimes. It is the very reason why email has been in stasis for so long.
Anyway, you understand why I brought it up, right? It is an attempt at a standard in email that already exists. When we are talking about improving email, highlighting existing work is useful. That means there is something tangible that can be used to improve the weaknesses in the current model.
Additionally, he brought up HTML email in the post. AMP email is an attempt at standardizing HTML email. That is relevant to what he wrote.
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.
Anyway, you understand why I brought it up, right? It is an attempt at a standard in email that already exists. When we are talking about improving email, highlighting existing work is useful. That means there is something tangible that can be used to improve the weaknesses in the current model.
Additionally, he brought up HTML email in the post. AMP email is an attempt at standardizing HTML email. That is relevant to what he wrote.