4 ms·

I hope this encourages Mozilla to focus more on page archiving support on the web. I feel as though they missed a huge opportunity by not making it easy to arch

by jml7c5 3y ago

I hope this encourages Mozilla to focus more on page archiving support on the web. I feel as though they missed a huge opportunity by not making it easy to archive pages with DOM snapshots, or easy to snag videos or images. (Go to Instagram and try to right-click -> download the image; you can't.) Would have been a very good way to differentiate from Chrome, as Google wouldn't want that available for Youtube. And "our browser can download videos and images from anywhere" is pretty easy to sell for potential users.

eigenvalue 3y ago
Agree, it seems like it’s insanely hard to back up a modern JS-enabled web page in a usable way that results in a single file which can be easily shared.
- nekitamo 3y ago
  Have you tried SingleFile? It sounds like what you’re looking for: https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile
  - edsu 3y ago
    Also check out https://archiveweb.page https://archiveweb.page which is open source, local, and lets you export archived data as WARC (ISO 28500). You can embed archives in web pages using their Web Component https://replayweb.page https://replayweb.page.
  - eigenvalue 3y ago
    Will check it out, thanks.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
BlueTemplar 3y ago
I'm baffled that the support of single file, offline HTML is still so bad today : https://www.russellbeattie.com/notes/posts/the-decades-long-html-bundle-quagmire.html https://www.russellbeattie.com/notes/posts/the-decades-long-... (I'm suspecting because this goes against the wants of some of the biggest players who have the incentive of making us leave as many online footprints as possible ?) Even here, Mozilla recommends converting to PDF for easier (?!?) human readability. Except PDF is a very bad format for digital documents, with no support for reflow and very bad support of multimedia. (PDF is perhaps good for archival of offline documents, even despite its other issues).
Dwedit 3y ago
"Save Page WE" will capture a DOM snapshot to a single HTML file. The only problem is that Data URLs encoded using Base64 are highly bloated.
dralley 3y ago
Isn't that basically Pocket, the service that people complain about endlessly as "bloat"?

by jml7c5 3y ago

eigenvalue 3y ago

Agree, it seems like it’s insanely hard to back up a modern JS-enabled web page in a usable way that results in a single file which can be easily shared.

nekitamo 3y ago
Have you tried SingleFile? It sounds like what you’re looking for: https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile
- edsu 3y ago
  Also check out https://archiveweb.page https://archiveweb.page which is open source, local, and lets you export archived data as WARC (ISO 28500). You can embed archives in web pages using their Web Component https://replayweb.page https://replayweb.page.
- eigenvalue 3y ago
  Will check it out, thanks.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

BlueTemplar 3y ago

I'm baffled that the support of single file, offline HTML is still so bad today : https://www.russellbeattie.com/notes/posts/the-decades-long-html-bundle-quagmire.html https://www.russellbeattie.com/notes/posts/the-decades-long-... (I'm suspecting because this goes against the wants of some of the biggest players who have the incentive of making us leave as many online footprints as possible ?) Even here, Mozilla recommends converting to PDF for easier (?!?) human readability. Except PDF is a very bad format for digital documents, with no support for reflow and very bad support of multimedia. (PDF is perhaps good for archival of offline documents, even despite its other issues).

Dwedit 3y ago

"Save Page WE" will capture a DOM snapshot to a single HTML file. The only problem is that Data URLs encoded using Base64 are highly bloated.

dralley 3y ago

Isn't that basically Pocket, the service that people complain about endlessly as "bloat"?