4 ms·

One thing I've always appreciated about the BBC website is that the old articles are still in the old style of the time. For example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi

One thing I've always appreciated about the BBC website is that the old articles are still in the old style of the time. For example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3559050.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3559050.stm or http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/574132.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/574132.stm (there might be a way to reliably find more examples, I'm not sure). I'm not sure whether this is by design or if the content was too tightly coupled to the style to migrate, but I like it. I think in the relevant RFCs it says that a URL should always point to the same thing, so it's good that they don't try to update them.

wldlyinaccurate 9y ago
I wouldn't say it's by design - more of a fun consequence of the way the BBC's web platforms have been retired so far. Most of the retired platforms generated static content (some XML, some HTML) so when the platform needed to be switched off it was relatively trivial to archive all of the content. In about 2013 the website was transferred piece by piece to a dynamic platform, which it (mostly) still runs on. The current platform is already slated for decommission some time in the next couple of years and there's still no cohesive plan for how pages on that platform will be archived. My guess is that they will be rendered on the new platform(s) indefinitely, since everything is driven by a CMS API now. I think it's kind of a shame - there's something nice about being able to look back in time without the pages being distorted through the lens of the wayback machine.
- nimos 9y ago
  I'm happy as long as there is an archive. The way front end dev is going these days it seems the best hope is a json api stays alive.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  I really hope they will archive statically rendered pages. It matters that you are able to see old websites in their original form. EDIT: does anyone know whom we might contact at the BBC to encourage them to do this when they make the transition?
Symbiote 9y ago
I think those two pages are the fastest-loading web pages I've viewed in the last 6 months. The second is just 109kB with all assets.
- cup-of-tea 9y ago
  That is what the web was like if you had a fast connection back in the 90s. Those were the days...

wldlyinaccurate 9y ago

I wouldn't say it's by design - more of a fun consequence of the way the BBC's web platforms have been retired so far. Most of the retired platforms generated static content (some XML, some HTML) so when the platform needed to be switched off it was relatively trivial to archive all of the content. In about 2013 the website was transferred piece by piece to a dynamic platform, which it (mostly) still runs on. The current platform is already slated for decommission some time in the next couple of years and there's still no cohesive plan for how pages on that platform will be archived. My guess is that they will be rendered on the new platform(s) indefinitely, since everything is driven by a CMS API now. I think it's kind of a shame - there's something nice about being able to look back in time without the pages being distorted through the lens of the wayback machine.

nimos 9y ago
I'm happy as long as there is an archive. The way front end dev is going these days it seems the best hope is a json api stays alive.
vanderZwan 9y ago
I really hope they will archive statically rendered pages. It matters that you are able to see old websites in their original form. EDIT: does anyone know whom we might contact at the BBC to encourage them to do this when they make the transition?

Symbiote 9y ago

I think those two pages are the fastest-loading web pages I've viewed in the last 6 months. The second is just 109kB with all assets.

cup-of-tea 9y ago
That is what the web was like if you had a fast connection back in the 90s. Those were the days...