2 ms·

TLDR; publishing static HTML is not straight-forward and dynamic has huge advantages. Compare this NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/technolo

by donohoe 12y ago

TLDR; publishing static HTML is not straight-forward and dynamic has huge advantages. Compare this NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/technology/facebook-needs-to-turn-data-trove-into-investor-gold.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/technology/facebook-needs-... to this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/business/virginia-plans-to-remove-suspect-guardrail-parts.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/business/virginia-plans-to... Everything pre-redesign was published in as a static. Back-publishing 1,000's of articles is impractical and risky (for other reasons).

dreamweapon 12y ago
Back-publishing 1,000's of articles is impractical and risky (for other reasons). Would be curious as to why. Also, while the pages clearly have different designs, it isn't immediately clear which is "better" (or that this betterness is due to its being dynamic versus static).
nbrogi 12y ago
No one is saying to code a whole site manually, but have the CMS spit out Static HTML. If the design changes, you refresh the HTML code.