Recensioni per Save Page WE
Save Page WE di DW-dev
438 recensioni
- Valutata 4 su 5di Findhead, 7 anni faпробовал разные настройки, вообще ни чего сохранить не может (Win7 57 x64)
- Valutata 5 su 5di FF_user, 7 anni fa
- Valutata 4 su 5di NotesTracker, 7 anni faSince I save web pages quite frequently, it's a waste of time and a pain having to move the mouse pointer from the web page up to the toolbar icon every single time. There really should be a context menu entry for Save Page As (right-click option) so that you don't have to move your focus from the web page content to the toolbar. All these extra seconds add up, over the days and months! Other than that it's a good add-on.
- Valutata 5 su 5di Utente Firefox 13503851, 7 anni faMost importantly, this is what page are saved in the format which are accessible for editing. I has turned to SavePageWE because the UnTNT does not work in Firefox v57.
- Valutata 4 su 5di andario2007, 7 anni faA super-useful addon, thanks so much, Mr. Developer.
However, it does not allow me to save nested images on a certain page, no matter what options I choose, and then it gives me some kinf of "bug", leaving the page unresponsive. Here´s an example of what always happens in the same website:
https://suchen.mobile.de/fahrzeuge/details.html?id=253730162
There´s no way (that I can find) to save all of the nested images, and as soon as I click any other image than the main one on the saved page, a get an unclickable, uncloseable pop-up that leaves the tab completely unresponsive.
Any chance to save the images on this particular page, mate?
Cheers! - Valutata 5 su 5di keff300, 7 anni faПростое удобное дополнение и очень нужное. Отлично работает.
Thank you for this top tool ! - Valutata 5 su 5di Utente Firefox 13466531, 7 anni fa
- Valutata 4 su 5di Utente Firefox 12881390, 7 anni faHace las funciones de unmht que parece que va a dejar de ser soportado por Firefox 57+. Addon funcional y esperemos siga mejorando, thanks developer!
- Valutata 4 su 5di Utente Firefox 13425745, 7 anni fai like it! wouldn't it make sense to make it a "page action" though?
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/pageAction - Valutata 4 su 5di kolAflash, 7 anni faGreat replacement for "Mozilla Archive Format, with MHT and Faithful Save."
But could you implement some optional compression like zip/gzip/deflate (or even xz/lzma or bzip2)? Nothing more complicated than putting the HTML file into a compressed container. Because currently the HTML files with base64 encoded images can be pretty big.
I guess the main problem may be to enable Firefox to open compressed HTML files. But maybe Mozilla likes to add such a feature if we open a bug request. Remember, Firefox already has code for decompressing zip/gzip/deflate, because that's needed in the HTTP code for compression. Mozilla has just to make use of that decompression code in the HTML code.
If Mozilla won't add support for opening compressed HTML, I still like to see an optional setting for ZIP compression. In that case the user has to care about decompressing the ZIP file before opening. - Valutata 5 su 5di Kohcab (Themes developer), 7 anni faEDIT : Thanks, I give 5 stars back. Webextensions suck :(
Replica dello sviluppatore
pubblicato il 7 anni faSave Page WE uses the new Firefox WebExtensions API's, which are pretty much the same as the Chrome extension API's.
These API's do not allow extensions to perform certain types of operations on a few pages, which are either browser administration pages or web store pages, specifically:
- about:
- moz-extension:
- https://addons.mozilla.org
- chrome:
- chrome-extension:
- https://chrome.google.com/webstore
There is nothing that Save Page WE can about this. - Valutata 5 su 5di Metal_66, 7 anni faIch verstehe nicht, wieso ich nur einen Stern vergeben hatte. Es sollten 5 Sterne sein!
Es speichert alle Seiten nahezu perfekt. Einen besseren Ersatz für Mozilla Archive Format hätte es nicht geben können!
Bei meinen ca. 60 Add-ons gehört es zu den Top 5 Erweiterungen. (Aktualisiert am Nov. 8, 2018) - Valutata 5 su 5di Utente Firefox 13394790, 7 anni fathanks, this is a very good addon!!
i have a lot mht format,
i can open it with unmht addon (legacy),
can u help me convert it to "save page we" html format?
until now "save page we" prevent to save mht format to html.
sory for my bad english.
thanks for your effortReplica dello sviluppatore
pubblicato il 7 anni faTo migrate a file saved by UnMHT or Mozilla Archive Format (MAF), please follow these steps:
1. Open the saved ".mht" or “.maff” file in Firefox using UnMHT or MAF respectively.
2. Re-save as an “.htm” file+folder using Firefox’s “Save Page As...” (Web Page, complete).
3. Serve the saved “.htm” file+folder through a local web server and open in Firefox. **
4. Re-save using Save Page WE.
** Suggest using a Google Chrome App called “Web Server for Chrome” from the Chrome Web Store:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/web-server-for-chrome/ofhbbkphhbklhfoeikjpcbhemlocgigb - Valutata 5 su 5di SENGHUO, 7 anni faEasy to use to save pages. Feel a little unsatisfied, it's required internet to save(I am using mobile hotspot
- Valutata 5 su 5di Siarhei Kuzeyeu, 7 anni faI've tried to do something like that. And I know that It's ver hard to do UnMHT analog.
I appreciate this addon. - Valutata 5 su 5di gejiod, 7 anni faGreat extension. enhance mht format cover to html format is better.
- Valutata 5 su 5di Utente Firefox 13312103, 7 anni fa
- Valutata 5 su 5di Procenko, 7 anni faAt last! Great 57+ addon for save pages!
Thank You very much!
PS unMHT, Scrapbook, MAFF - all this addons will be discontinued after 14 november 2017. And this Save Page WE addon our last hope for comfort saving pages!) - Valutata 5 su 5di Utente Firefox 13282130, 7 anni faI find this tool very neat and useful. It makes saving pages easier, more compact and it can adapt to your needs as well. For example saving a news article resulted in a file somewhat below 700KB, whereas the same page with the Firefox's default save was 5MB overall (plus the additional burden of managing many files). The end results can be hardly distinguished in the browser.
On the other hand with the information I currently possess about this mechanism, I don't think I will be using it as for now, for the following reason:
I'm corcerned as to how other tools (or future tools) that deal with html files will deal with these kinds of giant html files this extension produces, with large binary blobs and scripts embedded (Firefox save produces an html file 700 lines long, this extension: 6700). Encapsulation of data and readability with the classical format may just be too much of an advantage as opposed to the compactness this offers, especially on the long term.
I did a test: I opened the page archived with Save Page and the saved it again but with classic Firefox save. When I reopened that page, aside from the longer opening time, most of the images were lacking and much of the layout was somewhat off. Meaning, even if the visuals can be hardly distinguished, the more can the underlying logic from the perspective of the browser (and most likely from other html parsing tools').
So to sum it up, just as a non-professional in web-dev, I'm having doubts if html format was created for this kind of usage and if it can relatively fairly stand the test of time. For my application this tool, for the aforementioned reasons will not really suffice, nonetheless the engineering is astonishing. In the meanwhile I'm still searching for a tool that focuses its output in one folder and not a folder and a file as Firefox save does.Replica dello sviluppatore
pubblicato il 7 anni faIn reply to a couple of the points raised:
1) With regards to the saved file format:
The page source (HTML) and all of the referenced resources are saved in a single file (.html).
External CSS style sheets are converted to internal CSS style sheets. All other textual resources (scripts & frames) are stored as UTF-8 data URIs.
If the page loader is not used, all binary resources (images, fonts, audios, videos, etc) are stored as Base64 data URIs. In this case, if a binary resource is referenced multiple times, a Base64 data URL will be stored for each reference.
If the page loader is used, all binary resources (images, fonts, audios, videos, etc) are stored as Base64 strings in the page loader script, and are converted to blob URLs when the save page is opened. In this case, if a binary resource is referenced multiple times, its Base 64 string will be stored only once, resulting in much smaller saved files.
2) "When I reopened that page ... most of the images were lacking and much of the layout was somewhat off."
The reason for this discrepancy is that, when you saved the page with Save Page WE, you had the 'Use page loader to reduce file size' option enabled, which means all of the binary resources are represented as blobs.
Before using the Firefox 'Save Page As', you need to use the 'Remove Page Loader' menu item that is built into Save Page WE. Alternatively, you could disable the 'Use page loader to reduce file size' option before saving the page with Save Page WE. Either way, you should find that the re-saved page is pretty much identical to the original page.