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
