Re: Browser suggestion: local server

On 11/28/2015 9:29 AM, Seth Call wrote:
> 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/


Cool. I use Firefox almost exclusively.

Oh, wait ... not available for Firefox 42.0, the latest
and greatest version, which is what I run.

Of course, I would have to include Firefox and the addon
in my thumbdrive, and install them if not available on the
PC I am making a presentation from.


>
> 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?

Well see, I didn't know about these options. I'll explore them. Thanks.


>>
>> 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.

OK, well I was just trying to make it de rigeur for all current
browsers so there's nothing to install. Just another lazy developer
I guess. :-)

Thanks again.

-Steve



>>
>> - 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Received on Saturday, 28 November 2015 16:45:19 UTC