Rolf Leggewie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > amb-Uxr6IM1mbv2TY6FTCsQk+9Bc4/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew M. Bishop) writes:
> > 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. The reason for introducing wget is so that you can create an archive CD that can be read with only a web browser. There is no need to run another program (wwwoffled) to access the data which is stored on the disk. You could create an archive CD and give it to anybody and they could then read it without any special tools. If there are any missing images or links then wget will not convert the links to them so that using an internet connected web browser the latest version of the missing images can be seen. One other problem with storing the WWWOFFLE cache on the archive disk is that there is a slight difference between the Windows and UNIX version of the cache. For the UNIX version the files for http://www.foo:8000/ are stored in a directory called www.foo:8000 and for the Windows version they are stored in a directory called www.foo!8000 because Windows does not allow ':' in filenames. -- Andrew. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew M. Bishop [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/ WWWOFFLE users page: http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/wwwoffle/version-2.8/user.html
