Hi Andrew, thank you for the reply.
amb-Uxr6IM1mbv2TY6FTCsQk+9Bc4/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew M. Bishop) writes: > Even if this feature were to be implemented in WWWOFFLE I would not > leave in the ability to read the old cache format (obviously I would > provide a way of converting the existing cache). That sounds all fine to me. > You might say that you would convert the backup to the new format, but > if you do that you might as well copy the files back into the existing > cache. Why that? Convert the backup (doesn't have to be done every other day, does it? ;-)) and reburn it to the CD is what I would do. > A more appropriate format would probably be one where there are no > special requirements to access the files, perhaps using wget like > this: > > wget --convert-links --backup-converted --html-extension > > on all of the files that you would otherwise backup in WWWOFFLE cache > format. That sounds great but how would that be transparent to the user? For example, what about the situation I mentioned earlier where a.htm is in the cache but the embedded b.GIF is not? Quite honestly, I am not sure I understand how and why you want to introduce wget into the situation. Best regards Rolf Leggewie -- http://home.arcor.de/leggewie/ http://leggewie.biz/hamster.htm
