6 ms·

Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge, Brave, etc.) already have great MHTML support. Just right click on a page > "Save as...", and select "Webpage, Single Fil

by maxloh 2y ago

Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge, Brave, etc.) already have great MHTML support. Just right click on a page > "Save as...", and select "Webpage, Single File" in the dialog.

thekevan 2y ago
I was just going to ask why this was better than just saving an MHTML file in the browser.
- gildas 2y ago
  Because the MHTML format produced by Chromium can almost be considered as proprietary.
  - maxloh 2y ago
    That's not correct. MHTML has been defined as internet standard since 1999. MHTML has been an internet standard since 1999, with support dating back to IE 5.0. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2557 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2557
    - gildas 2y ago
      I'm actually referring to the "set of modifications" described here [1] and the fact that only Chromium can open (these) MHTML files today. [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FvmYUC0S0BkdkR7wZsg0hLdKc_qjGnGahBwwa0CdnHE https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FvmYUC0S0BkdkR7wZsg0hLdK...
      - maxloh 2y ago
        Good to know that! Are you meaning that these modifications cause the generated MHTML files to become non-standards-compliant? I wouldn't consider them proprietary though. At least the primary software used to open these files, Chromium, is open-source software.
        gildas 2y ago
        I agree that it's debatable, which is why I used the word “almost” ;). The fact remains that this info isn't in RFCs and is hard to find on the web.
- maxloh 2y ago
  It seems that Firefox doesn't support saving a page as MHTML yet. Maybe that's the reason. https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/add-support-of-mhtml-format/idi-p/7244 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/add-support-of-mhtml-fo...
  - xeonmc 2y ago
    Also it doesn’t quite fully save all of the assets, like fonts if it were referenced in CSS files
freehorse 2y ago
Because having just an html file can just be simpler and html files are more ubiquitously rendered. Personally having a single html file with base64 encoded images embedded into it serves 99.9% of what I usually want to do when wanting to have a webpage saved offline. Such a file can be eg be put in my dropbox and rendered in dropbox web interface which makes it easy to share with others. I have actually made a script that looks for image tags in an html file on my computer, looks in the local directory location for them and base64 embeds them in the html file itself, so this seems to simplify the process.
- hahn-kev 2y ago
  If that's all you want then couldn't you just print to PDF?
  - eviks 2y ago
    It's not responsive anymore
  - freehorse 2y ago
    Because I do not want a page structure in the document. Images are arranged better in an html file because a pdf would have to arrange things into pages and thus create undesirable gaps or put images in weird ways. Plus html is just a text file I can further edit if I want.

by maxloh 2y ago

Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge, Brave, etc.) already have great MHTML support. Just right click on a page > "Save as...", and select "Webpage, Single File" in the dialog.

thekevan 2y ago

I was just going to ask why this was better than just saving an MHTML file in the browser.

gildas 2y ago
Because the MHTML format produced by Chromium can almost be considered as proprietary.
- maxloh 2y ago
  That's not correct. MHTML has been defined as internet standard since 1999. MHTML has been an internet standard since 1999, with support dating back to IE 5.0. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2557 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2557
  - gildas 2y ago
    I'm actually referring to the "set of modifications" described here [1] and the fact that only Chromium can open (these) MHTML files today. [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FvmYUC0S0BkdkR7wZsg0hLdKc_qjGnGahBwwa0CdnHE https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FvmYUC0S0BkdkR7wZsg0hLdK...
    - maxloh 2y ago
      Good to know that! Are you meaning that these modifications cause the generated MHTML files to become non-standards-compliant? I wouldn't consider them proprietary though. At least the primary software used to open these files, Chromium, is open-source software.
      - gildas 2y ago
        I agree that it's debatable, which is why I used the word “almost” ;). The fact remains that this info isn't in RFCs and is hard to find on the web.
maxloh 2y ago
It seems that Firefox doesn't support saving a page as MHTML yet. Maybe that's the reason. https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/add-support-of-mhtml-format/idi-p/7244 https://connect.mozilla.org/t5/ideas/add-support-of-mhtml-fo...
- xeonmc 2y ago
  Also it doesn’t quite fully save all of the assets, like fonts if it were referenced in CSS files

freehorse 2y ago

Because having just an html file can just be simpler and html files are more ubiquitously rendered. Personally having a single html file with base64 encoded images embedded into it serves 99.9% of what I usually want to do when wanting to have a webpage saved offline. Such a file can be eg be put in my dropbox and rendered in dropbox web interface which makes it easy to share with others. I have actually made a script that looks for image tags in an html file on my computer, looks in the local directory location for them and base64 embeds them in the html file itself, so this seems to simplify the process.

hahn-kev 2y ago
If that's all you want then couldn't you just print to PDF?
- eviks 2y ago
  It's not responsive anymore
- freehorse 2y ago
  Because I do not want a page structure in the document. Images are arranged better in an html file because a pdf would have to arrange things into pages and thus create undesirable gaps or put images in weird ways. Plus html is just a text file I can further edit if I want.