3 ms·
I was just going to ask why this was better than just saving an MHTML file in the browser.
by thekevan 2y ago
I was just going to ask why this was better than just saving an MHTML file in the browser.
- gildas 2y agoBecause the MHTML format produced by Chromium can almost be considered as proprietary.
- maxloh 2y agoThat'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 agoI'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 agoGood 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 agoI 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 agoIt 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 agoAlso it doesn’t quite fully save all of the assets, like fonts if it were referenced in CSS files