The Omni Group
These forums are now read-only. Please visit our new forums to participate in discussion. A new account will be required to post in the new forums. For more info on the switch, see this post. Thank you!

Go Back   The Omni Group Forums > OmniWeb > OmniWeb General
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
Question about Webarchive Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Hi,

I hope that the next version of OmniWeb, presumably 6.0, fixes a bug that has been aggravating me for quite some time ...

OmniWeb 5.9.2 was the last version in which when saving a webpage as a webarchive file, the assigned file name was the same of the respective window or tab, or the same when bookmarking that very same webpage.

Since that version this functionality is badly broken.
Take for example, this very same page.
If you bookmark it, the name is: "The Omni Group Forums - Reply to Topic"
If you save it as a webarchive, it will give the file the following name: "newreply.php"

Pathetic, isn't it?
Especially because this feature was working properly in 5.9.2, and it works properly in Safari (as always has).

Why can't OmniWeb give the webarchive file the exact same name it gives when bookmarking the exact same page?

Also, is there a chance that one day OmniWeb will have a feature that IE 5 had, which allowed to choose how "deep" the links in the webarchive file would be saved?

Thank you.
Anxiously waiting for a fix with file naming for webarchiving.
CA
 
(This post really had nothing to do with the thread you replied in so I'm moving it to it's own thread)

We are aware there are still issues here and intend to correct them (I agree the webarchive saved name should be the same as the title).

The problem is, we use the same dialog for saving individual files as well as webarchives. When saving an individual file, you usually want the actual name of the file rather than the title.
__________________
Troy Brandt
Omni Person
 
Hi Troy,

Thanks for the reply.
I think I understand what you mean by
"you usually want the actual name of the file rather than the title"

However, until the "ideal" solution comes, why not keep using the solution used by Safari and by OmniWeb 5.9.2?
Why, change something that works (though not according to the "ideal" solution), to something that is broken for the vast majority of webpages?

If the "ideal" solution is not going to be available soon, why not use the solution that kinda works?

Thank you.
CA

PS: I like OmniWeb a lot (it is my default browser). Keep up with the good work.
 
Please keep in mind that how well this works is dependent on who's using it. The reason we made any changes at all is due to people feeling that the way it previously worked was horribly broken.

The current behavior is actually much more functional than it used to be. In the current version of OmniWeb, it will actually use the page title, if there isn't a file name in the url. Pages that end in a / for instance should always use the page title as the name rather than the file.

Try saving http://www.omnigroup.com/ for example.

I know there are still issues with this and we will be working them out. Sorry for the frustration that this may be causing.
__________________
Troy Brandt
Omni Person
 
Hi Troy,

I honestly cannot understand the view that the way it used to work was "horribly broken".
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't that the way that Safari has done all along? Wasn't also like IE used to work? Isn't it the way iCab works?

So, unless I am mistaken, the way OmniWeb used to work, is the "standard way" these other browsers work. Right?
So, are all these other browsers broken too?
In that case, what is the definition of "broken"?
Please forgive me if I am missing something and/or my statements are incorrect.

One other thing about webarchiving that I liked in IE is that after saving the file, when one opened the saved file, the URL would be the real URL rather than the location on the hard disk. This had the nice advantage of one being able to quickly see (and maybe copy) the actual URL, to include in a document or to send it in an email.
Another advantage was that one could just quickly reload the saved webpage and get all the updates from the web server.
Could there be 2 fields at the top of the webbrowser, one showing the URL and the other the location of the saved file?

Thank you.
CA
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by caugusto View Post
I honestly cannot understand the view that the way it used to work was "horribly broken".
What I'm trying to say is that people see things differently. Some people did not like the way it used to work.

Quote:
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but wasn't that the way that Safari has done all along? Wasn't also like IE used to work? Isn't it the way iCab works?
I can't speak for the other browsers but OmniWeb 5.9.2 did not work the way Safari works. Try saving an image, in Safari you will be presented with a new sheet that uses the file name of the image not the title. This is the functionality that we were missing.

Quote:
So, unless I am mistaken, the way OmniWeb used to work, is the "standard way" these other browsers work. Right?
So, are all these other browsers broken too?
Again, can't speak for other browsers but I think that what safari does is the MOST right. There needs to be a save dialog specific to media and one specific to web pages.

I would like to see something like this make its way into OmniWeb.

Quote:
One other thing about webarchiving that I liked in IE is that after saving the file, when one opened the saved file, the URL would be the real URL rather than the location on the hard disk. This had the nice advantage of one being able to quickly see (and maybe copy) the actual URL, to include in a document or to send it in an email.
Another advantage was that one could just quickly reload the saved webpage and get all the updates from the web server.
Could there be 2 fields at the top of the webbrowser, one showing the URL and the other the location of the saved file?

Thank you.
CA
You're right, I agree, this was cool. WebArchives is something that is part of WebKit, we don't do anything special to support it. IE had a number of great features that have never been picked up by other browsers including the way they did archives. If we had the time I wouldn't be opposed to doing our own implementation but we have a lot of other things we need to do first.

As I've mentioned in my earlier posts. I am not disagreeing with you. We did not intentionally break the functionality you were expecting we are simply moving to a middle ground which clearly wasn't middle enough for you. I don't think the current functionality is perfect and we will work on it.

Furthermore, I think your usecase here on these forum pages is a perfect bug report. OmniWeb did regress and it's something that should go in our bug tracker.
__________________
Troy Brandt
Omni Person

Last edited by troyb; 2009-09-11 at 05:55 PM..
 
 


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PDFs only save as webarchive Clytie OmniWeb Bug Reports 3 2010-03-08 06:32 AM
Another webarchive problem sgmiller OmniWeb General 1 2007-03-28 03:24 PM
Webarchive caugusto OmniWeb Feature Requests 8 2006-07-13 12:54 PM
webarchive icon? afb OmniWeb Bug Reports 5 2006-07-11 07:03 PM
Webarchive deactivation darrel OmniWeb Feature Requests 9 2006-07-07 12:31 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.