Russell McMahon wrote:
>>>>>> Also of interest may be
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    http://others.servebeer.com/temp/walkingrobots
>>>>>>             
>
>   
>>> The 'html' page is an MHT file produced by Microsoft Internet
>>> Explorer. I have no trouble reading such.
>>>       
>
>   
>> Ah, damn the standards, use M$!  :-)  I've never heard of MHT - what 
>> is it?
>>     
>
> Nobody asked you to, Sir, she said.
> (I'm nobody, I guess ;-) ).
>
> Nothing suggested it was an HTML file, it's an MHT file which contains 
> HTML. Also, potentially, jpgs, GIFs and a few other things. And they 
> are extremely useful.
>
> When you save a web page the default treatment is to make an html 
> header page and a subdirectory (aka folder) with all the pictures and 
> other material. Works well enough BUT they are not explicitly linked 
> and can be copied separately, or not.
>
> The MHT format takes the whole page contents and places it in a single 
> file. If you want to archive it, move it or otherwise process it all 
> the information is in one file. Very nice if you have something which 
> handles it seamlessly.
>
> I guess it is a standard :-) - as it does something that html doesn't 
> do as of right. If there is some other way of easily and cheaply 
> achieving the same end that also is compatible with a larger range of 
> browsers then I'd be pleased to know about it.
>
>
>         Russell
>
>
>   
Well, there is so much in what you said that I just plain disagree 
with... but I am too much of a Linux fan....

Still, I think I can be un-biased enough to give a somewhat reasonable 
response.

While I can appreciate that for you it is convenient to package the file 
up in this MHT format, that does not mean it is the best solution. It 
just means that for you there is nothing better that you know of.

Specifically, it does not make it a standard!

While it may be useful for managing your website, it is a lousy way to 
actually deliver the web-site content. Here's why:
1. many many people will not recognize the file-type, and will simply 
ignore it (which is what I did until this thread started in earnest).
2. many many browsers will not handle the file content at all, and will 
display as text, or request a "save as". I use FireFox, "lynx" and 
"links", and I had to find a windows machine to actually display the 
content of the page as it was intended. I found that very scary because 
things like the scroll-bar changed colour, etc. This makes me worry 
about the security issues in that MHT seems to be able to take control 
of more than I feel comfortable giving it..
3. It MIME-Encapsulates the content, which means a few things:
    a. The browsing client has no idea of what content is actually 
inside the file until it is opened... think viruses.
    b. Binary type files (jpg's gifs, etc.) are base64 encoded, which 
adds about 50% of the file-size, so your bandwidth costs more.
    c. you have to download the complete file in one go where most 
browsers will be able to "parallelize" the download of the HTML content 
with the images comming later.

So, if your intent is to use this MHT format to manage your website, 
then fine. I find that CVS works well, or tar, or even Zip. But for 
actually publishing content, it is not good.

For me, I will not trust any content distributed as MHT again. It seems 
like an open invitation for abuse.

Rolf
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist