4 ms·
That's what I thought he would aim for. This is actually safe from being taken down whereas op's solution needs op's website to decode the url.
by air7 7y ago
That's what I thought he would aim for. This is actually safe from being taken down whereas op's solution needs op's website to decode the url.
- SigmundA 7y agoRight it took me a a little while to realize that its still needed a host since its talks about not needing a host and doesn't say here is the bootstrap page that needs to be hosted. data url's are truly entirely in the url with no hosting or dependencies.
- jstrieb 7y agoWhile I agree that this is technically correct, I feel it ignores the spirit of the project. Since I released it open-source, my expectation is that anyone who cares about safety from takedowns will clone and host one or more of their own. Or, for that matter, use the files offline with shared base-64 encoded URLs
- air7 7y agoIf your site goes down, all the links go broken. To use a clone I'd need to manually copy a part of a dead link and append it on the clone url. The links are actually just data stores in need of a renderer. Why not use an html file instead?