gildas

28 ms·

1. 271.▲
   by gildas 7y ago

   I think SingleFile or SingleFileZ [1] would indeed solve your needs. [1] https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFileZ
2. 272.▲
   by gildas 7y ago

   By default, it will capture everything that would be interpreted/displayed. However, you can also run it with Selenium (and Firefox) instead of Puppeteer, and install your favorite extensions to block all the unwanted resources (there&
3. 273.▲
   Save web pages as self-extracting HTML/ZIP hybrid files(github.com)

   5 points by gildas 7y ago|0 comments
4. 274.▲
   by gildas 7y ago

   SingleFile which can run on CLI too handles this by using CSS variables.
5. 275.▲
   by gildas 7y ago

   You want this: https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile/tree/master/cli .
6. 276.▲
   by gildas 7y ago

   Note that SingleFile can easily run on command line too, cf. https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile/tree/master/cli .
7. 277.▲
   by gildas 7y ago

   FYI, SingleFile can run on command line too, cf. https://github.com/gildas-lormeau/SingleFile/tree/master/cli
8. 278.▲
   by gildas 7y ago

   Demo of the competitor's phone (ICL One Per Desk computer) that can be seen at 15:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZDVHi3UywM
9. 279.▲
   by gildas 7y ago

   Even though your website serves static pages, I don't think that's a good idea to hide all the contents when JavaScript is disabled... I'm surprised the "SEO analysts" did not notice that.
10. 280.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    I publish an extension on the store of Chrome with 1+ million of (technical) users. Three years ago, someone proposed me to buy it for 50,000 USD. He clearly indicated that he was interested by the user base...
11. 281.▲
    Google’s Plans for Chrome Extensions Won’t Help Security(eff.org)

    42 points by gildas 7y ago|20 comments
12. 282.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    Google would remove uBlock from my PC before I even know it and I would notice it very quickly (unfortunately). A personal computer has always been very complicated and using it has always been a risk in itself. I remember a time when a vir
13. 283.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    I consider everything to be a matter of risk in terms for example of privacy. By installing an extension like uBlock, I am indeed taking the risk you mentioned. However, I consider that the risk will be much higher when installing an extens
14. 284.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    Some also claim that Google kills innovation. Synchronous interception of requests allows developers to program sophisticated rules to fight malicious resources. In the future, they will only have a regular expressions list to block domains
15. 285.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    The same applies for my own fork of SingleFile, called SingleFileZ. I can publish any update of SingleFile in 1 hour. For SingleFileZ, which requires less permissions, I have to wait 7 days for exactly the same update. That's very demo
16. 286.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    You're welcome. Alternatively, you could simply use "for of" but the requests won't be sent in parallel.
17. 287.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    You might want to replace the `openOrders.forEach ...` call with a call to `await Promise.all(openOrders.map ...)` if you want to catch errors and stop the program when cancelling previous orders, and more importantly make sure you cancel o
18. 288.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    Google uses LitElement (version 2.0.1) [1] to create the page. You can see it by typing `litElementVersions` in the JavaScript console. [1] https://github.com/Polymer/lit-element
19. 289.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    You're right, MHTML is supposed to solve this problem. I wrote SingleFile because Chrome did not support MHTML 9 years ago. Now, it's not dead and Chrome supports it but no other modern browsers (not based on Chromium) supports it
20. 290.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    Thanks! You can find web components in a lot of unexpected places. For example, this page [1] contains more than 10K web components... The good news is that once the Pandora's box is open, I had the idea to code SingleFileZ [2] which a
21. 291.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    On my side, the criticism I could make to web components is that there is no standard to serialize their shadow roots and, therefore, they are not deserializable without using JavaScript. I have been maintaining SingleFile [1], a web extens
22. 292.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    This page weights 30MB because of the images, server-side rendering won't help.
23. 293.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    Thank you very much! I'm the author of both projects (and zip.js too actually) ;). By the way, if you can, do not hesitate to leave a review on the Mozilla Add-Ons Store.
24. 294.▲
    This is not an HTML page.(gildas-lormeau.github.io)

    3 points by gildas 7y ago|0 comments
25. 295.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    :)
26. 296.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    You're welcome. I'm glad people are interested in my projects too ;) Implementing a Reader view is hard, I guess. It looks like it's almost impossible to write a program to be able to do it in a generic way for all existing w
27. 297.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    Thanks for the details and the kind words. I need to see how the bookmarks API works. I've never played with it until now. Unfortunately, extensions can't run in the Reader View mode. I don't know any workaround to this. Howe
28. 298.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    Thanks! That's an interesting suggestion. Could you give me more details?
29. 299.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    You could archive pages! ;)
30. 300.▲
    by gildas 7y ago

    Can you open your MHTML page in any browser (supporting JS)? Firefox or Safari, for example, don't support MHTML. Moreover, MHTML is more and more becoming a proprietary format (cf. for example the serialization of shadow root contents