This is tested on the XF default theme. I don't understand the point of releasing a fix when it doesn't work on the default theme? What is fixed if the default is broken?
If the default theme doesn't validate -- what's the point? Google will not use any of these AMP pages until 100% compatible with zero critical errors.
If the default theme doesn't validate -- what's the point? Google will not use any of these AMP pages until 100% compatible with zero critical errors.
Naz
Staff member
I don't have the code in front of me but you potentially have add-ons at play too, which doesn't make it any less trickier.
The default style validates fine for me but I use minimal add-ons, which yes isn't ideal but, it's an active process. What validates fine for me might not for you and thus we're attempting to find the sweet spot.
You have to factor in dynamically injected css which can't always be accounted for, hence opening it up to others to see what doesn't work for them.
The default style validates fine for me but I use minimal add-ons, which yes isn't ideal but, it's an active process. What validates fine for me might not for you and thus we're attempting to find the sweet spot.
You have to factor in dynamically injected css which can't always be accounted for, hence opening it up to others to see what doesn't work for them.
Naz
Staff member
There's definitely something that isn't default there. Take a look at mine:
This is from one of my development environments which have a number of add-ons in play. The green icon in Chrome indicates it's a valid AMP page and the lack of errors in the console show there are no validation errors.
Regardless though, can you expand the contents of those validator errors (or provide a link I can access) so I can see what's causing those, please?
This is from one of my development environments which have a number of add-ons in play. The green icon in Chrome indicates it's a valid AMP page and the lack of errors in the console show there are no validation errors.
Regardless though, can you expand the contents of those validator errors (or provide a link I can access) so I can see what's causing those, please?
This is what I meant earlier in discussion about AMP. AMP templates are strict, and everyone I've ever seen do this build their template with CSS in full, then they only pull the very limited data itself from the DB to fill the specifics. That way they control exactly what is shown on the page.
An AMP page cannot just be a stripped down version of XF theming or be susceptible to add-on injection. No hooks allowed, no template modifications, na da.
An AMP page cannot just be a stripped down version of XF theming or be susceptible to add-on injection. No hooks allowed, no template modifications, na da.
https://search.google.com/search-console/amp that should be the only valid tester IMO.
Nope. That is a single XF default theme with nothing added, no add-ons, na da, tested using the correct Google Amp test.
Naz
Staff member
Mine's the same thing, just in extension form. It'll give the exact same results.
Naz
Staff member
You can already do this yourself, if you wish to. Just search the templates for those that are suffixed with '_amp' and edit accordingly.
Naz
Staff member
I'll take a look at supporting Pagespeed though and see what it entails
Also, to elaborate on this... the default add-on is packaged with pre-populated templates and a framework to get you started. It's not expected people will be satisfied by the automatically generated results but in some cases, it's enough.
If you're serious about AMP, you have the flexibility to customize your AMP pages and make them look completely different to your standard pages. There's a bunch of '_amp' pages and an extra CSS file for further modifications and an admin can do these all with basic HTML / CSS knowledge.
Similar threads
