Re: Browser suggestion: local server

Well, lots of suggestions on how to do this without
changing the standards for UAs. And I researched
and even tested several of these.

But they miss the mark, in my opinion.


The advantage in requiring UAs to handle SSI include
statements if it is pointing to a local file is that
I can have a portable site with no need to connect
to the internet and no need to install supplemental
software or write code that might not work on some
other platform.

If UAs did this, I can show my portable website no
matter if the browser is IE, Chrome, Firefox, Opera,
Safari, ... and no matter if the platform is Windows,
Mac, Linux, ...

So this enhancement would support: useability, flexibilty,
portability.


In the absence, I'll continue testing by loading up all
my files to the server and then pointing to the starting
page on the server.


Thanks anyway folks.


-Steve



On 11/28/2015 6:08 AM, Steve Comstock 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
>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Sunday, 29 November 2015 13:19:27 UTC