Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Pocket Stream Archive – A personal Way-Back Machine

github.com

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: Show HN: Pocket Stream Archive – A personal Way-Back Machine

#41
post #19

Screenshotting or PDFing of a website is an increasingly important archiving tool, to supplement wget. I've come across a lot of websites that won't render any content if not connected to a live server.

Wouldn't a copy of the DOM be even better than a screenshot?

I.e. DOM copy > screenshot > wget?

Re: Show HN: Pocket Stream Archive – A personal Way-Back Machine

#44
post #19

Screenshotting or PDFing of a website is an increasingly important archiving tool, to supplement wget. I've come across a lot of websites that won't render any content if not connected to a live server.

But what do you do when a website has a broken media query, essentially destroying the print layout? Then a PDF is useless.

Well, I took a screenshot, better than nothing.

Re: Show HN: Pocket Stream Archive – A personal Way-Back Machine

#45
post #3

Now if only Chromium could learn to write WARC archives, then it would be on par! :) Great project!

Or EML/MHT. It's the format the email programs use to store the HTML mail incl all pictures, JS, CSS, ... in one plain text file. IE 9-11 also supports that format (file -> save as...) but calls it MHT?

Re: Show HN: Pocket Stream Archive – A personal Way-Back Machine

#46
post #5

What version of Google Chrome do you need for the PDF export to work? I tried it on 58.0.3029.96 (Linux) and this does nothing (no error messages, it just quits without writing any files): $ google-chrome --headless --disable-gpu --print-to-pdf ' http://example.com' Edit: I'm completely baffled that such widely used software as Google Chrome can have this written in the man page: "Google Chrome has hundreds of undocu…

This is the only place I've found them parsed and documented: http://peter.sh/experiments/chromium-command-line-switches/

Re: Show HN: Pocket Stream Archive – A personal Way-Back Machine

#49
post #41
post #19

Screenshotting or PDFing of a website is an increasingly important archiving tool, to supplement wget. I've come across a lot of websites that won't render any content if not connected to a live server.

Wouldn't a copy of the DOM be even better than a screenshot? I.e. DOM copy > screenshot > wget?

I mentioned it below, but I tried getting DOM snapshots using chrome --dump-dom, but the output usually didn't render well without a section. (chrome only outputs the ) I could attach the headers from the wget file... but then it starts getting messy and complicated.
Post reply on HN