Re: Browser suggestion: local server

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 Saturday, 28 November 2015 13:08:52 UTC