[Maf] MAF vs. MHTML

[tmm]

Christopher Ottley wrote:

> tmm wrote:
>
>> MAF sounds good, but is there anything wrong with using MHTML?
>
>
> Nope.
>
>> Though it comes from MS, and is designed for e-mail, it seems to be a 
>> standard: IETF RFC standard 2557.
>> Is there any reason why MHTML can't be cross-platform and cross-browser?
>
>
> Nope.
>
>> Does TBird (my e-mail client) use MHTML for sending HTML e-mails?
>
>
> Nope. :). Close though, the eMail clients do MIME encode stuff, but as 
> I found out after reading the spec, it's a little bit more than 
> encoding some files and appending the result to the end of something.
>
> MHTML is an encoding, not an archive. Because of this if you take a 
> web page's elements and MHTML encode it, you'll end up with a file 
> that is larger than the total size of the elements you started out 
> with. MAF on the other hand basically zips the elements together 
> meaning it will be the same size or smaller than the original total 
> size of the elements. MAF can also allow for additional meta data to 
> be added pretty easily and archives (because they are true archives) 
> can be modified outside of Mozilla/Firefox. I haven't seen any MHTML 
> "editors" out there. Adding meta-data or doing modifications by hand 
> (for example using notepad) may work, but is tedious and error-prone. 
> MAF also allows you to save multiple pages in the same archive, 
> something which you'd have to really hack to fit into the MHTML spec. 
> I know how to do it, it's just so ugly, it's not worth it. ;).

Yes, MAF sounds pretty good.  I think I'll try again to get the 
extension to work (using your suggestions in the other thread).
Thanks for the responses (and the extension).

Tom.


> Regards,
> Christopher.
>