Closed Bug 82118 Opened 20 years ago Closed 4 years ago
Tracking bug for Saving/Sending/Viewing HTML pages (e
.g ., as a single file, MHTML)
Tracking bug for Saving/Sending/Viewing HTML pages (e.g., as a single file, MHTML) This is to track the various bugs floating around that request dealing with web pages as a "whole" entity.
This is also a good gathering place to track duplicates and assign this or a related bug the keyword: MOSTFREQ
Marking NEW and reassigning to Peter as he's the one that wants to track this (basing this decision on what happened in bug 75364). Adding meta keyword. The bugs this bug is marked as blocking are actually dependancies, if I'm not mistaken, so changing this (if I'm wrong change it back). Wondering why this bug is tracking three duplicates (is this neccessary?). I'm quite new at this, so don't get too mad if I've got it all wrong and someone has to undo all my mistakes.
Moving summary to the right field.
Summary: Tracking bug for Saving/Sending/Viewing HTML pages (e.g., as a single file, MHTML)
perhaps add bug 64286 as a dependency of this bug? ...see my comment, http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64286#c6 for why. In short, I believe that MHTML is only one solution. MHTML has two problems: hard to edit (yes I know WinZIP can open it) and not compressed. "Save As Web Page, Complete" has the following problems: not preserving original content (specifically where things are located), not a single file, not compressed.
FYI, bug 121793 explores using a fully W3C standard compliant method of saving all elements of a web page as inline data using Base64 encoding and the "data:" protocol [RFC 2397 - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2397.html]
adding dependency on bug 64286, view compressed web archives (same type of bug as bug 18764) see bug 64286 comment 6 and the above comment 4
Depends on: 64286
shouldn't bug 123320 be added as a dependency?
MAF (http://maf.mozdev.org/) is an extension which might be useful.
I think, the dependency on bug 254139 – "File | Save Page As should default to <title>, not filename" is missing
QA Contact: chofmann
The extension UnMHT seems to do a very good job of reading and writing MHT files. Therefore, I am withdrawing my vote for this bug.
(In reply to comment #12) > The extension UnMHT seems to do a very good job of reading and writing MHT > files. > > Therefore, I am withdrawing my vote for this bug. 99% of firefox users don't have any extensions installed, except those their more savvy friends install for them. Besides UnMHT has its quirks.
Marking all tracking bugs which haven't been updated since 2014 as INCOMPLETE. If this bug is still relevant, please reopen it and move it into a bugzilla component related to the work being tracked. The Core: Tracking component will no longer be used.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 4 years ago
Resolution: --- → INCOMPLETE
This is the *next* great file format for documents. It has a number of advantages over almost anything else. Like for example to handle a bunch of mutually linked text or multimedia documents. Being able to easily link to the guts of another document in one of the things that explains the WWW success, and that is close to impossible to achieve with Word. We only need an HTML WYSIWYG editor like W3C's www.w3.org/Amaya/ and we are done. Not the usual Word-like JS editor but one like Amaya, that displays an editable clean HTML page. Another advantage of this format is that it's not only a format but it may allow also functionality, by allowing sandboxed JS, much safer than Word VBS viruses. I can't believe that we don't have all this since lots of years ago!
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.