amb-Uxr6IM1mbv2TY6FTCsQk+9Bc4/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew M. Bishop) writes: >> 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.
While that certainly is an advantage, but how will I use my bookmarks pointing to the web URL in that scenario? Plus, this means extra work to create that separate archive. It's not a transparent solution and thus will not work for me :-( If wget indeed were the solution why did we ever bother using WWWOFFLE in the first place ;-) ? > 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. What you mention is not at all specific to an archive but applies to the main repository as well. -- http://home.arcor.de/leggewie/ http://leggewie.biz/hamster.htm
