3 ms·
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 ima
by 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 agoIf that's all you want then couldn't you just print to PDF?
- eviks 2y agoIt's not responsive anymore
- freehorse 2y agoBecause 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.