Hm, very interesting, especially for bookmarking/archiving.
I'm curious, why not use the MHTML standard for this?
- AFAIK data URIs have practical length limits that vary per browser. MHTML would enable bundling larger files such as video.
- MHTML would avoid transforming meaningful relative URLs into opaque data URIs in the HTML attributes.
- MHTML is supported by most major browsers in some way (either natively in Chrome or with an extension in Safari, etc).
- MIME defines a standard for putting pure binary data into document parts, so it could avoid the 33% size inflation from base64 encoding. That said, I do not know if the `binary` Content-Transfer-Encoding is widely supported.
I'm curious, why not use the MHTML standard for this?
- AFAIK data URIs have practical length limits that vary per browser. MHTML would enable bundling larger files such as video.
- MHTML would avoid transforming meaningful relative URLs into opaque data URIs in the HTML attributes.
- MHTML is supported by most major browsers in some way (either natively in Chrome or with an extension in Safari, etc).
- MIME defines a standard for putting pure binary data into document parts, so it could avoid the 33% size inflation from base64 encoding. That said, I do not know if the `binary` Content-Transfer-Encoding is widely supported.