[OT] Re: [ILUG] web file format

[Padraig Brady]

Good tip!
Somewhere along the chain table background
colours were lost, but still useful
(though mht files would be better).

Padraig.

Smith, Graham - Computing Technician wrote:
> What i normally do is use "print to file" from Netscape,
> then use ps2pdf on the resultant postscript. Makes a nice
> little archive of a page all in one neat self contained file
> which you can open in xpdf or acroread or whatever takes 
> your fancy for viewing pdf documents.
> 
> The full Acrobat application (i dont mean just the reader app)
> can create a pdf of a webpage and recurse to a specified
> depth of a site and create a more complex pdf of many
> pages. I think thats only available for windows though so thats
> not much use. But a feature like that in Mozilla would be pretty
> cool. 
> 
> G.
> ___________________________
>  Graham Smith,
>  Network Administrator,
>  Department of Computing,
>  Institute of Technology,
>  Tallaght, Dublin 24
>  Phone: + 353 (01) 4042840
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Murtagh [mailto:murtaghn at tcd.ie]
> Sent: 15 May 2002 19:17
> To: ilug at linux.ie
> Subject: [OT] Re: [ILUG] web file format
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 15 May 2002 17:47, Padraig Brady wrote:
> 
>>Why is there no common format
>>recognised by browsers for
>>saving/opening "web documents",
>>I.E. tar.gz of a folder containing
>>html file(s) and pictures etc.
> 
> 
> Funnily enough this idea had occurred to me too...
> The logical extension of this is to serve up a webpage
> as a tar.gz, including images and css and javascript,
> so that the browser only has to request one file.
> Most browsers and web servers already use gzip compression
> so that wouldn't be hard to do. The downside is that
> cached images and so on would be downloaded again, but
> it should be possible to avoid this somehow, by having the
> server omit them from the archive.
> 
> Maybe better discussed on webdev?
>