Rolf Leggewie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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 you need a transparent solution and are happy to accept the
limitations of the format then I think that keeping the WWWOFFLE cache
in the archive is the solution (although currently you cannot get
access the cache unless using something like plasticfs on Linux).
Personally I prefer portability rather than transparency only with the
use of a particular tool.
> If wget indeed were the solution why did
> we ever bother using WWWOFFLE in the first place ;-) ?
WWWOFFLE and wget are *both* the solution, but to different problems :-)
> > 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.
This is true, but I can rename the directories if I copy the main
repository to a Windows machine, but you can't rename the directories
on a CD.
--
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
