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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Subject: Browser suggestion: local server >>> To: "Ian Hickson" <[email protected]>, [email protected], >>> [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], >>> [email protected], [email protected], "Ian Jacobs" <[email protected]>, >>> "Mark Douglas (CITEC)" <[email protected]>, "Patrick Loftus" < >>> [email protected]>, "Ulrik Dobashi Hansen" <[email protected]>, "Bert >>> Bos" <[email protected]> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
