Save as rfc 2557 MHTML; complete webpage in one file
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Serializers, enhancement, P3)
Tracking
()
People
(Reporter: sidr, Unassigned)
References
(Blocks 1 open bug, )
Details
(4 keywords)
Attachments
(2 files)
Comment 1•25 years ago
|
||
Comment 3•25 years ago
|
||
Comment 5•25 years ago
|
||
Reporter | ||
Comment 6•25 years ago
|
||
Comment 8•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 10•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 11•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 12•24 years ago
|
||
Updated•24 years ago
|
![]() |
||
Comment 13•24 years ago
|
||
Comment 14•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 15•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 16•23 years ago
|
||
![]() |
||
Comment 17•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 18•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 19•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 20•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 21•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 22•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 23•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 24•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 25•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 26•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 27•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 28•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 29•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 30•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 31•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 32•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 33•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 34•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 35•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 36•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 37•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 38•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 39•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 40•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 41•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 42•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 43•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 44•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 45•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 46•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 47•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 48•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 49•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 50•23 years ago
|
||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Comment 51•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 52•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 53•22 years ago
|
||
Updated•22 years ago
|
Comment 54•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 55•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 56•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 57•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 58•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 59•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 60•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 61•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 62•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 63•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 64•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 65•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 66•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 67•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 68•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 69•22 years ago
|
||
Comment 70•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 71•21 years ago
|
||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Comment 72•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 73•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 74•21 years ago
|
||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Updated•21 years ago
|
Comment 75•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 76•21 years ago
|
||
![]() |
||
Comment 77•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 78•21 years ago
|
||
![]() |
||
Comment 79•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 80•21 years ago
|
||
![]() |
||
Comment 81•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 82•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 83•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 84•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 85•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 86•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 87•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 88•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 89•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 90•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 91•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 92•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 93•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 94•21 years ago
|
||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Comment 95•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 96•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 97•21 years ago
|
||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Comment 98•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 99•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 100•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 101•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 102•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 103•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 104•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 105•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 106•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 107•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 108•20 years ago
|
||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Comment 109•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 110•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 111•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 112•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 113•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 115•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 116•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 117•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 118•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 119•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 120•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 121•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 122•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 123•20 years ago
|
||
Comment 124•19 years ago
|
||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Comment 125•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 126•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 127•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 128•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 129•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 130•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 131•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 132•19 years ago
|
||
Comment 133•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 134•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 135•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 136•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 137•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 138•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 139•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 140•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 141•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 142•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 143•18 years ago
|
||
Comment 144•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 145•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 146•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 147•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 148•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 149•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 150•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 151•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 152•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 153•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 154•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 155•17 years ago
|
||
![]() |
||
Comment 156•16 years ago
|
||
Updated•16 years ago
|
Comment 158•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 159•15 years ago
|
||
Comment 160•14 years ago
|
||
Comment 161•13 years ago
|
||
Comment 163•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 164•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 165•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 166•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 167•9 years ago
|
||
Comment 168•9 years ago
|
||
![]() |
||
Comment 169•7 years ago
|
||
Updated•6 years ago
|
Comment hidden (advocacy) |
Comment 172•3 years ago
|
||
Just highlighting that this issue isn't dead. It is as important as ever to be able to load and save .mhtml files.
We need a better alternative to sharing documents than PDF files. MHTML files are going to be more accessible, and more convenient for people to share content.
See this appraoch to PDFs from the UK - https://gds.blog.gov.uk/2018/07/16/why-gov-uk-content-should-be-published-in-html-and-not-pdf/
Now all Chrome based browsers can load/save MHTML files to make it easy to share a snapshot of a site in time. Unfortunately FF users still need to install an extension..
Comment 173•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Mike Gifford from comment #172)
Now all Chrome based browsers can load/save MHTML files to make it easy to share a snapshot of a site in time. Unfortunately FF users still need to install an extension..
Can't someone just pull that code from the extension, and build it right into Firefox itself? Isn't this how a lot of programming happened here?
Comment 174•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Worcester12345 from comment #173)
(In reply to Mike Gifford from comment #172)
Now all Chrome based browsers can load/save MHTML files to make it easy to share a snapshot of a site in time. Unfortunately FF users still need to install an extension..
Can't someone just pull that code from the extension, and build it right into Firefox itself? Isn't this how a lot of programming happened here?
Or just pull the code from Chromium?
I'm sure such a feature would be welcomed by many users. :)
Comment 175•3 years ago
|
||
Mike Gifford <mike@openconcept.ca> wrote :
Now all Chrome based browsers can load/save MHTML files to make it easy to share a snapshot of a site in time. Unfortunately FF users still need to install an extension.
What? An extension? Did I missed something? I was under impression that since the notorious ver. 57 (web)extensions are no longer capable of adding a ability to view a format, that Mozillaʼs browser itself does not support; was I wrong?
Comment 176•3 years ago
|
||
For the purpose of saving complete webpage in one file, much more convenient file format would be HTML instead of MHTML, since HTML is widely-supported file type.
One of web extensions that already make this possible is called "Save Page WE". It has been actively maintained. Users can save a complete webpage or selected items. Further, users can save one or more selected webpages (i.e. selected browser tabs). Information bar at top of each saved HTML file is supported as well and can be enabled among settings. Web extension is available for Firefox - link and Chrome - link.
In this case it is questionable whether the development of native MHTML support makes sense nowadays – except for the purpose of opening old (archived) MTHML files. After all, this feature has been pending for more than 20 years.
Comment 177•3 years ago
|
||
I like Leon's pragmatic approach.
I think on the users scenarios, like dharing a page with somebody else.
One can send the link, but not always. For example when the page is local.
Also, the link is not useful when trying to share a form with some fields already loaded.
Sendint the HTML is a chore, it usually involves a number of files. Not useful for "normal" people. Let alone all the alarms raised by an email client receiving all those JS files.
People are sending each other MSWord or PDF files. The MSWord files don't have JS but VBA and fostered a terrible wave of destructive viruses (you opened the file and the Windows PC was nuked) because VBA had access to the OS bowels.
People are also sharing PDF files, which brings us back to the 1999 HTML pages that had fixed format and a gazillion spacer.gif refs.
For now, and 20 years later, people can't share web pages, or sets of web pages (what Leon mentions as a tabs set).
Ideally those complete web page(s) would travel encapsulated in a compressed file, optionally encrypted.
this would top the MSWord or PDF formats by being responsive and by including some of the link targets.
The issue is how to protext normal people from scams.
Like external links to bad places, or JS attacks.
I don't know, but I think that nowadays it should be easier than 20 years ago, when the VBA viroses were averriden.
Comment 178•3 years ago
|
||
Leon <leon.slo@outlook.com> wrote:
For the purpose of saving complete webpage in one file, much more convenient file format would be HTML instead of MHTML since HTML is widely-supported file type.
HTML is not a format for saving a complete page to a single file.
One of web extensions that already make this possible is called "Save Page WE". It has been actively maintained.
And another one (arguably, more actively maintained) is ‘Single File’.
In other words, by ‘format’ you mean specific hacks, employed by those extensions.
Widely-supported, you say? The width of their support among webbrowsers is a round sum of 0. Zero browsers support saving to that format. Please correct me, if I am mistaken.
In this case it is questionable whether the development of native MHTML support makes sense nowadays – except for the purpose of opening old (archived) MTHML files. After all, this feature has been pending for more than 20 years.
Please note, that if you count third-party addons, than prior Mozilla decided to trash all the labour of XUL-extension devs, they had managed to develop at least couple of addons, that implemented MHTML: one was ‘MAFF’, another had some self-descriptive name; so the issue was not that outstanding until year 2017.
In any case, I strongly doubt, that the lack of adoption of interchange format in a browser with usage share, that all recent years have been positively heading towards a statistical error, is a good measure to make judgements about its future.
The truth is that MHTML is simply the only saving format, supported by the most widely used browser on this planet: Google Chrome for Android.
Comment 179•3 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Dmitry Alexandrov from comment #178)
HTML is not a format for saving a complete page to a single file.
Not by original design, but it can be modified for this purpose with the help of extensions, as you mentioned.
Widely-supported, you say? The width of their support among webbrowsers is a round sum of 0. Zero browsers support saving to that format. Please correct me, if I am mistaken.
You are right, but I wasn't talking from the perspective of saving. My point was that you don't need an extension to be able to open single-file HTML. You only need such extension for saving a webpage into one file. In terms of universal ability for opening it, single-file HTML is recognized by every major web browser: tested with single-file HTML (saved by Save Page WE) on Firefox and Edge for Windows, as well as Chrome and Brave for Android.
Comment 180•3 years ago
|
||
Redirect a needinfo that is pending on an inactive user to the triage owner.
:hsinyi, since the bug has recent activity, could you have a look please?
For more information, please visit auto_nag documentation.
Comment 181•3 years ago
|
||
HTML is the most used language in the world.
Sadly, we all can read it (rendered) but comparatively few people can write and communicate it.
It should be mainstream-easy to write a page, or a linked pages cluster, using a tool similar to MSWord or the various WYSIWYG online editors, and then to send said page(s) wuth ease.
As the result of this lack of tools, people are sending each other PDF documents, an infamous printing format that generally requires to display a portrait A3-sized page in a landscape screen, and can't reflow its text(!).
IMO this MHTML format is the seed, a first step, to take over the documents communications world.
Updated•3 years ago
|
Updated•2 years ago
|
Comment 182•1 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Leon from comment #179)
(In reply to Dmitry Alexandrov from comment #178)
HTML is not a format for saving a complete page to a single file.
Not by original design, but it can be modified for this purpose with the help of extensions, as you mentioned.
The problem is that it is difficult for the average person to differentiate between single-page HTML and HTML pages saved as separate files. If they want to send an HTML file to a friend, they must either bundle up a bunch of files (which is beyond the technical expertise of many people), point them to a website, or just give up.
MHTML is a great format for sending web pages. Beside the obvious single-page format, IT IS SUPPORTED BY ALL MAJOR BROWSERS EXCEPT FIREFOX. (I don't count Safari, which also doesn't support it, because Macs don't count as computers.)
Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, and Opera all open MHTML files natively, without extensions. WHY IS FIREFOX SO FAR BEHIND???
Widely-supported, you say? The width of their support among webbrowsers is a round sum of 0. Zero browsers support saving to that format. Please correct me, if I am mistaken.
You are right, but I wasn't talking from the perspective of saving. My point was that you don't need an extension to be able to open single-file HTML. You only need such extension for saving a webpage into one file. In terms of universal ability for opening it, single-file HTML is recognized by every major web browser: tested with single-file HTML (saved by Save Page WE) on Firefox and Edge for Windows, as well as Chrome and Brave for Android.
So...your argument is that people who are non-technical should have to learn how to install an extension in Firefox to do what EVERY OTHER MAJOR BROWSER CAN DO NATIVELY?!?
It seems much more reasonable to add support for saving HTML pages to a single-file directly into Firefox, in all major Web archive file formats, including MHTML/MHT, MAFF (old Firefox format), WARC (Internet Archive's Web ARChive format for entire sites), HTMLD (HTML Directory), and even Webarchive (in Safari browsers).
The default should be MHTML/MHT:
(1) It is widely supported.
(2) It doesn't end with HTML/HTM, so it won't be confused with those
(3) It is compatible with email messaging (being identical or almost identical to the EML format)
(4) It is a handy way to save web pages into a single-file and send them to others.
The only one that is better is the MAFF format, because it allows for compression. (I don't know if MHTML/MHT does or not, but it should...)
I was extremely angry when Mozilla removed the ability to save and read MAFF and MHTML/MHT formats. I've saved hundreds of pages in those formats and really don't want to change browsers or convert every single file to the new and less useful single-page HMTL format.
If security is a concern, then turn off this feature by default, but let users select it in Settings. Browsers should never become so secure that their usefulness disappears. Security must be coupled with ability for software to have value.
ADDING MHTML/MHT SUPPORT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY FOR FIREFOX!
Comment 183•1 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Leon from comment #176)
For the purpose of saving complete webpage in one file, much more convenient file format would be HTML instead of MHTML, since HTML is widely-supported file type.
The problem with your argument is that complete page HTML is not distinguished from HTML which is scattered into dozens and dozens of images and folders and files. That makes it confusing for the average user who just wants to send a webpage to someone else. Links are inadequate and single-file HTML works, but to repeat the obvious, it gets confused with non-single-file HTML.
So the single-file HTML is NOT useful in this case. It's the opposite of useful.
One of web extensions that already make this possible is called "Save Page WE". It has been actively maintained. Users can save a complete webpage or selected items. Further, users can save one or more selected webpages (i.e. selected browser tabs). Information bar at top of each saved HTML file is supported as well and can be enabled among settings. Web extension is available for Firefox - link and Chrome - link.
Save Page WE is a fantastic extension! However, it still doesn't address the main problem... Single files to send to other people should be named with something OTHER than HTML/HTM. Otherwise, normal users will not send those files correctly, losing images and other information from a web page.
In this case it is questionable whether the development of native MHTML support makes sense nowadays – except for the purpose of opening old (archived) MTHML files. After all, this feature has been pending for more than 20 years.
MHTML/MHT makes fantastic sense today!
At this point, we can save web pages as "Web Page, complete" or "Web Page, HTML only" natively in Firefox and the HTML single-file format from the "Save Page WE" or "Singlefile" extensions.
"Web Page, complete" saves dozens and dozens of objects...for this page it saved 162 separate files and/or folders.
"Web Page, HTML only" doesn't save anything but the basic HTML, losing all the images and other important features on a web page.
The single-file HTML format from the extensions is great...but it saves with the HTML extension. So that means that people who want to send a file or open the file can get easily confused. It also doesn't allow for compression, which would be tremendously useful.
Thus it is proved that MHTML is very useful for many, many people, since normal users who could use this feature represents the vast majority of browser users.
Plus, I really like it too.
Comment 184•23 days ago
|
||
(In reply to Biju from comment #83)
And thunderbird can save *.eml file, and also can view *.mht and *.eml files
This comment is 21 years old and still valid, as far as I understand.
So TB has this functions out of box but FF can't view mht and needs third-party addon for saving.
And there is no more common option to save a page to single file (pdf is not capable of complex layout).
Description
•