On 16/07/07, Matthew Somerville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
James Cridland wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/breakfast/pip/jrjen/ - good.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/breakfast/archive/07/07/10/ - better.
That's not better; URLs are supposed to be unique. Okay, Breakfast isn't a
great example for my case, but even with that, if it's ever repeated, your
URL might no longer be appropriate. I believe that is exactly why it is done
as it is, given the vast majority of programmes might be repeated, can be
part of schedules, different series, and so on.
Yep, that second one should be an index of some description, and the
'archive' is redundant. Bear in mind that programmes get reedited as
repeats, reversioned, sold abroad, are composed of clips from other
programmes...
> Another example (from the same area):
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/x9qv/ - good
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/elton_john/
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artist/elton_john/> - better
Okay, I can't follow that one - I guess if you had two artists of the same
name? But then I'd go with changing one of their names. ;)
Yep - might work for musicians, would work for actors (where equity
makes them have individual names), really won't work for producers,
crew, etc where you get massive duplication of names.
James - an aside - you need to talk to the programme info people in
FMT, and maybe the person in VMPS who is looking after the work done
for drama/comedy TV on this kind of stuff. There's a good four year
history on this one!
/steps away from her old job, breathing slowly and evenly...
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
