Re: Browser suggestion: local server

I feel forced to recommend this too:

In Python 2.x, you can do:

*python -m SimpleHTTPServer*

Or in Python 3.x



*python3 -m http.server*
Then, the current folder that you ran the command will have it's files
served from port 8000.



On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Steve Comstock <steve@trainersfriend.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>