I have written a small manual in HTML that I would like others to be able to use. Is there a way that I can 'package' the website folder structure into one file so that nobody has to worry about finding the index.html page?
MHTML, short for MIME HTML, is a web page archive format used to combine resources that are typically represented by external links (such as images, Flash animations, Java applets, and audio files) with HTML code into a single file.
More info here.
Related
I was going over my company's code base, and I saw some file format I have never seen before. They are all ended with .thtml .
What exactly is the .thtml? I was told it is for template files, and every time I view it in vscode I need to choose a language at bottom right corner of the IDE (default was plain text). What is the use of template file in web development? Are they the substitutes of .html files?
HTML templates are HTML files enriched with variables, macros or other logic. They need to be preprocessed to ordinary HTML files before they can be viewed in a broswer. HTML templates are very useful when you want to create a lot of static HTML files sharing the same structure but with different contents.
There are several HTML templating engines out there, of which one happens to be named exactly thtml. (Of course this does not guarantee that it is the one your company uses.)
I know a typical practice to build an Electron app is to follow SPA (Single Page App). I still would like to split my html content into separate files for easy maintenance. There is still the main index.html file which is to be loaded on startup.
My question is: is there a protocol for inserting a part of html content from a different files? For eg. in Django, there is a include and extend tags where you can insert an entire html file into the body of another parent html file or retain certain features from another html file.
There's no way to do this directly. Django is a server-side framework, so you can assemble your HTML on the server, and the completed HTML is sent to the client/browser. With Electron, you're basically running Chromium with Node.js APIs added, loading your HTML from the filesystem, so there's no server to do any HTML assembly in.
However, if you just want to break up your HTML into pieces for easier maintenance, but you're not doing any of your include/extend dynamically, theoretically, you could use some kind of templating system or a static site generator to combine your HTML files statically at build time.
Here's an list of some JS templating engines: https://expressjs.com/en/resources/template-engines.html
Here's a list of some static site generators (filter language by JavaScript): https://jamstack.org/generators/
I find the answers to What is the difference between GitHub and gist? unsatisfying, and I'm wondering if the difference (partially) lies in their treatment of HTML. In particular, I'm wondering:
Is it possible to point others to an HTML file on github.com such that when they view the file, they view the HTML page rather than its source? Normally on github, and even when the extension in the URL bar is .html, the HTML code is not interpreted by the browser (why?).
When an HTML page is viewed on gist.github.com, the HTML page is indeed seen rather than its source. Is this the main (or a main) feature of the difference between github and gist?
Is it possible to point others to an HTML file on github.com such that when they view the file, they view the HTML page rather than its source?
Only by using Github Pages
Normally on github, and even when the extension in the URL bar is .html, the HTML code is not interpreted by the browser (why?).
Because the purpose of Github is to manage code, not to host webpages.
URLs do not have file extensions. Browsers determine what to do with content based on the Content-Type header.
When an HTML page is viewed on gist.github.com, the HTML page is indeed seen rather than its source. Is this the main (or a main) feature of the difference between github and gist?
It doesn't when I test it.
Github proper is for hosting Git repositories.
Gist is for showing ad-hoc code samples managed by git, but without the full interface to the repository.
I am creating a HTML 5 user manual. This contains a number of image folders and js fodlers. Now i wish to distribute this as a single document. In Windows there is mht or something to that effect. Is there any way I can do this on ubuntu that is not browser or OS dependent?
notice that :MHTML, short for MIME HTML, is a web page archive format used to bind resources which are typically represented by external links (such as images, Flash animations, Java applets, audio files) together with HTML code into a single file. The content of an MHTML file is encoded as if it were an HTML email message, using the MIME type multipart/related. The first of the file is normally encoded HTML; subsequent parts are additional resources identified by their original URLs and encoded in base64. This format is sometimes referred to as MHT, after the suffix .mht given to such files by default when created by Microsoft Word, Internet Explorer or Opera. MHTML is a proposed standard, circulated in a revised edition in 1999 as RFC 2557.
So try to save document as regular html with none of dependency. this will be run at any OS independently.
Well, as far as I know you won't be able to really distribute this manual as HTML OS independent.
BUT: you can distribute it as PDF, ZIP-file, host it anywhere, ePub, etc. These are pretty good options for your needs. Safari has a pretty cool feature called webarchive, but this only zips ONE single page to a viewable, always-the-same-looking page. And it will only be viewable with Safari. So you'd have to do this for ALL your pages...
A flash file can be embedded in a PDF document. Does anyone know if it is also possible to embed an HTML webpage?
Added:
I don't mean just a plain HTML document, but a webpage with Javascript too.
The answer is no.
While you can embed videos, sounds and SWF files in a PDF, dynamic HTML files aren't supported. (Adobe AIR is more suitable to package and distribute HTML files).
The best you can do in a PDF is to use the ATTACH option in Adobe Acrobat. This will "attach" any file with the PDF document similar to how you add an attachment with an email. But the attachment can't be viewed within the PDF document, and has to be opened separately.
More info:
Javascript can be added to PDF files and used to manipulate various elements within the PDF file.
Not directly. Depending on what you're looking for, however, you can use something like dompdf (PHP) to generate a PDF file from an HTML document, then merge that document with your original. It even supports JavaScript, up to the level Adobe Reader supports JavaScript.
That said, the PDF file format is really for things you want to print (i.e. want to look the same everywhere), not things you want to click on (i.e. look sensible everywhere). Adobe's decision to include Flash support was probably made from a marketing standpoint, not a technical one.
The best workaround would be to create a web/html viewer in Adobe Flash and embed that in a PDF as an SWF. There is an option to "Add SWF" in Acrobat under "Rich Media."
Created a NPM module that allows you to add custom HTML and CSS to PDF's.
const pdf = require('add-html-to-pdf');
var options = {
input: 'sample.pdf',
output: 'done.pdf',
html: "<div style='color:red'>This is awesome!</div>",
useDocker: true
}
pdf.insertHTMLInPDF(options);
You could reconstruct the html, css and js on the web page using php.
Im using a plugin with a wordpress site that is pretty outdated but works very well for creating pdfs with html, css and javascript.
it's called tcpdf
plugins/tcpdf/tcpdf.php
https://tcpdf.org/examples/
the pdf is made on the fly as a function.