3 ms·
Their source material here is 1 million pages of HTML, they don't have (on my reading) some separate source of "structured data" for the modern template system
by bonaldi 12y ago
Their source material here is 1 million pages of HTML, they don't have (on my reading) some separate source of "structured data" for the modern template system to use.
It seems reasonable (and possibly low) for a 90 days estimate to extract the content from the variety of versions of static page, structure it, and then publish it in a more modern fashion.
It's all very well to say they should have used a more efficient system from the start, but "the start" in this case is 1996, which is the wild west in terms of best practices.
- thezilch 12y agoIn 1996 (or as late as early 2000s), many published texts were via tools like Dreamweaver, where the publisher would checkout / lock a file, make static changes, and save the file, directly on prod. Like you said, it's not surprising at all they have a large portion of their articles in static HTML files.
- eitanmk 12y agoExactly. To compound the issue, older content may not fit into our current schema, so there are other data issues that need to be solved. Adding hand-coded HTML to pages was quite common 10 years ago, so parsing that into the structures we work with today isn't always straightforward and difficult to automate.