@SquareWheel - there is no reply link on your comment, so I'm replying here. I read your comment and I understand it.
There is no reason to load any JavaScript on a page that only contains some text and images. If the goal is to speed up loading, then blocking unnecessary JS shouldn't break the page. It's clear that page speed is not Google's primary goal with AMP.
Clicking the permalink often brings up reply for lower nested comments.
>There is no reason to load any JavaScript on a page that only contains some text and images.
While I've not read through all of Amp's JS to know what it's for, I will say I've used JS to specifically speed up static pages before.
One example is the Filament Group's loadCSS script[0]. This allows for cross-platform asynchronous CSS loading.
Font loading is also another tricky subject. Linking non-blocking font assets while minimizing FOIT and FOUT is still not a solved problem. Smashing Magazine just had a 50 minute video presentation[1] on this problem. JS loaders are a common approach.
So I disagree with you that page speed is not the primary goal here, simply because I've run into these same kinds of problems myself and can relate. Google also has the advantage that their JS will almost always be cached by end-users.
> So I disagree with you that page speed is not the primary goal here
I think you're missing the bigger picture behind it. Google is making a power grab to appify the WWW on their own domain, and they are coercing publishers to implement it by giving lower search engine rankings to sites that don't go along with the scheme. It's an abuse of their position. It goes against the fundamental nature of the WWW and the basic ideas of decentralized technology.
Sorry, but that's a Gish Gallop argument. It's completely unrelated to what we've been discussing, and frankly those points have been argued over so many times already I see no benefit in repeating the exercise.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Glossary/Graceful_d...