There is need for a sidebar viewer like in Scrapbook. It makes it much more useful just like using bookmarks.
Простое удобное дополнение и очень нужное. Отлично работает.
Thank you for this top tool !
Hace las funciones de unmht que parece que va a dejar de ser soportado por Firefox 57+. Addon funcional y esperemos siga mejorando, thanks developer!
i like it! wouldn't it make sense to make it a "page action" though?
Nice extension, but why not get support for Android?
Great 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.
EDIT : Thanks, I give 5 stars back. Webextensions suck :(
Save 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:
There is nothing that Save Page WE can about this.
Please provide the ability to save pages from the Reader view.
it meets my need, awesome!!!
It is necessary that the saved pages are obtained less.
Home page Google stored by 3 extensions -
Maff extension size 30 611 bytes
UnMHT extension 1 288 236 bytes
Save Page BE extension 1 541 351 bytes
I apologize for the bad English, I wrote through Google translator
thanks, 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 effort
To 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:
save all the pages of an open session, just like MAF and Unmht.
Scrapbook is not available, so I'm using this addon.
TL;DR: please PLEASE just re-do MAFF and everyone will be better off. (About your reply that maff is only supported by desktops: let people decide for themselves. I saved all my pages as maff for years and could;n care less about what other people use)
This tool isn't ready for usage yet imo
Just updated and got MAFF's warning about Nov'14th and their suggestion for this addon. So i've tried it
For simple text pages it is maybe working, but what about heavy pages?
For example, i had this page i forgot to close few weeks back: http://www.inven.co.kr/board/powerbbs.php?come_idx=2898
When i tried to save it, there wasn't any images with default settings, and saving took some noticeable time too
When i tried to enable imeges in settings... Oh boy! The browser hang for about 5 mins, ate about 3 f...ing GIGS of ram, and then tried to open GAZILLION of pop-up windows that asks me to save file again and again and ag... Arrrrgh!
I had to kill Firefox via Task manager
Then, i tried to save that page with MAFF...
It took 7 seconds (SEVEN), no more memory then usual, and resulting file was only 4.2Mb.
Something seriously wrong with this addon
PS: Btw, WE can't save this very page, while MAFF can. With edit comment window open, too. Deal with it.
Save Page WE is not intended to be a clone of MAF. However, it has been developed because MAF and UnMHT will not work with future versions of Firefox. It is doubtful whether a clone of MAF could be implemented using the new WebExtensions API's.
MAF produces .maff files and will not work with Firefox 57 or later versions. The files saved by MAF can be opened only in Firefox and only if MAF is installed.
Save Page WE produces .html files and works with Firefox 51 and all later versions. The files saved by Save Page WE can be opened in any browser without any add-on being installed.
Save Page WE saves the page you mentioned (http://www.inven.co.kr/board/powerbbs.php?come_idx=2898) without any problems, The images are saved whether saving the page with Save Current State (default setting) or with Save Complete Page. The file sizes are 3.4MB and 6.7MB respectively. In both cases, the page is saved in about 14 seconds.
The new WebExtensions API's do not allow add-ons to perform certain types of operations on a few pages,
- about: ...
- moz-extension: ...
- https://addons.mozilla.org/ ...
Thank you for this top tool !
please add an option to select and save all the pages of an open session, just like Unmht has!
Easy to use to save pages. Feel a little unsatisfied, it's required internet to save(I am using mobile hotspot
I've tried to do something like that. And I know that It's ver hard to do UnMHT analog.
I appreciate this addon.
Great extension. enhance mht format cover to html format is better.
At 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!)
Simply the best!
I 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.
In 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.
I just installed this addon - on click on button - it says: Saving... it takes very long, browser freezes, CPU jumps and browser should be killed; next time the same.... I was not able to test beyond that.... ff 57 nightly...
As suspected, this issue was caused by a bug in Nightly 57, not by a bug in Save Page WE.
Mozilla have fixed this bug in Nightly 57.0a1 (2017-09-08).
Perfect for saving web pages and well written.
This addon - very good replacement and alternative for MAFF and UnMHT (still so shame and pity that solutions will be deprecated with ff57). Convinient feature - adding timestamp to file name and other useful information to comments inside created html-file.
Only one wish for future - option for zipping created html.