Re: Browser suggestion: local server

On Firefox, (probably other browsers), there are extensions that run a web
server  too...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pow-plain-old-webserver/

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>
wrote:

> Why not just download a copy of nginx? It can be ran from a folder
> directly without any install. Or a python install (they can be portable as
> well) and use its simple HTTP server module?
>
> Getting a local server running for testing is very easy and accessible
> now. I don't see why UA's should be forced to step in here.
>
> - Garbee
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 8:08 AM, Steve Comstock <steve@trainersfriend.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2015 11:36 AM, Gannon Dick wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Steve,
>>>
>>> There are excellent, not IT motivated reasons for
>>> using a local server, or better said locating an
>>> (actual) interface at 127.0.0.1.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I'm aware of that interface, but it is not
>> at all what I'm talking about; my suggestion needs
>> code in the browser to simulate the way a server
>> handles <!--#include ... --> statements.
>>
>>
>> This is not how the "Web of Things" works,
>>>
>>
>> but I don't care about that.
>>
>> but this is how people arrange collections of
>>> reference documents.  This is highly significant
>>> in Emergency Management where hardware and
>>> connectivity can be disrupted by the event itself
>>> ... but you, your laptop and trusty thumb drive
>>> survived.  There are Portable Apps ...
>>> (http://portableapps.com/), but your trusty thumb
>>> drive might not have its favorite laptop around.
>>>
>>
>> My proposal has nothing to do with survival in an
>> emergency, it's far more prosaic. If I have all the
>> pages and files for a website on a thumb drive, then
>> any laptop will work because there will be some
>> browser on the laptop.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You can count on at least a working browser on a
>>> working laptop, I think.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Me too.
>>
>>
>> So, if the browser supports the current standard,
>> and if the standard says when a browers is pointed
>> at a local file whose name ends in '.shtml' then
>> the browser should attempt to handle server side
>> includes in the same way a server does.
>>
>>
>>> That said, the document collection should then be
>>> XML ... because the style, spin, persuasion,
>>> salesmanship whatever you want to call it that
>>> XHTML inherits from HTML should not distract or
>>> interfere with access.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I don't want to step on any toes here, but
>> my impression is that XHTML is kinda' moribund and
>> that the latest HTML version is actually gaining
>> steam. Of course, I could be totally wrong (it
>> wouldn't be the first time).
>>
>> And, it shouldn't matter: if the HTML standard were
>> to support my suggestions, presumably that would
>> also be supported in XHTML.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> c.f.
>>> http://Stratml.us/
>>> http://www.rustprivacy.org/2015/stratml/cap_sml/vfsroot/
>>>
>>>
>>> --Gannon
>>> --------------------------------------------
>>> On Thu, 11/12/15, Steve Comstock <steve@trainersfriend.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Subject: Browser suggestion: local server
>>>   To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>, public-html-comments@w3.org,
>>> annevk@opera.com, simonp@opera.com, markdavis@google.com,
>>> addison@inter-locale.com, team-liaisons@w3.org, "Ian Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>,
>>> "Mark Douglas (CITEC)" <Mark.Douglas@CITEC.COM.AU>, "Patrick Loftus" <
>>> patrick.loftus@TNT.COM>, "Ulrik Dobashi Hansen" <ulrik@808.dk>, "Bert
>>> Bos" <bert@w3.org>
>>>   Date: Thursday, November 12, 2015, 11:08 AM
>>>
>>>   Guys,
>>>
>>>   I've been doing a lot of development using .shtml
>>>   and server side includes. Testing, however, is a
>>>   bit of a pain: I can't really test the includes
>>>   are working until I upload all the files to my
>>>   server.
>>>
>>>   It occurs to me it would be terrific if this
>>>   could be part of some standard:
>>>
>>>   * If a browser (user agent) points to a local file,
>>>     and if the filename ends in '.shtml', then the
>>>     browser should endeavor to process any 'include'
>>>     statements in the file in the same way a server
>>>     would
>>>
>>>
>>>   This would also be nice because I can put a whole
>>>   website on a thumb drive then display it to a meeting
>>>   or class without having to actually connect to the
>>>   internet! Makes the site much more portable.
>>>
>>>   Is that reasonable? Desirable? How do I go about
>>>   proposing such behavior?
>>>
>>>
>>>   Kind regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>   -Steve Comstock
>>>   303-355-2752
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>