Re: [Feature] add a new org-attach dispatcher command to offline save web page

[stardiviner <numbchild@gmail.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256


Thanks, Ihor, your explanation is helpful a lot!!!

Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:

>> My uneasiness has more to do with the specificity of the dependence on
>> monolith and the way that is hard-coded into the patch. When it comes to
>> patches, I think priority should go to those that are configurable,
>> accessible, and useful for everyone as opposed to those that have
>> hard-coded work-flows or highly-specific user configurations.
>
> Agree. Though I can see a use of having monolith as one of the options
> to help people discover what kind of tools they can use. I personally
> had a hard time finding command-line cli like monolith. Actually, it is
> the first time I heard about some offline tool handling js without a
> need to write python or ruby code. 
>
>> The question is: which functionality? A simple downloading tool or a
>> full archival tool? Achieving similar functionality to org-board or
>> monolith would a big task, since they aim to download an archival
>> version of a webpage (including all resources). 
>
> My view on this is bare-bones download, in a spirit of org-attach
> itself. There is already 'url method in org-attach-attach, but it is
> hard-coded to url-retrieve-synchronously. It would be handy if user
> could configure alternative retrievers (like monolith, wget, curl, or
> some user-defined function).
>
> Note that monolith does not crawl the website. It only collects
> everything needed to show the page as you see it in browser into single
> html file. This behaviour is what one expects to obtain when saving a
> full web-page from browser.
>
>> In addition, with
>> archiving you also quickly run into the complexity of versioning based
>> on time archived. 
>
> I guess that org-attach-git can be used for versioning, but I don't
> think that versioning is within scope of this patch. Monolith does not
> even support versioning.
>
>> There's also the challenge of mapping the downloaded
>> files to metadata (specifically the original url). Org-board currently
>> handles both of these very well.
>
> org-board is a great package, but it is not built-in. I do not think
> that all the org-board functionality needs to be included into
> org-attach. At least not within scope of this patch as I understand it.
>
> Best,
> Ihor
>
> Matthew Lundin <mdl@imapmail.org> writes:
>
>> Ihor Radchenko <yantar92@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> It does not mean that attaching URL directly is not worth including
>>> into org. This sounds pretty common use case, especially considering
>>> the number of packages providing similar feature. You mentioned
>>> org-board, but there is also org-download and org-web-tools.
>>
>> My uneasiness has more to do with the specificity of the dependence on
>> monolith and the way that is hard-coded into the patch. When it comes to
>> patches, I think priority should go to those that are configurable,
>> accessible, and useful for everyone as opposed to those that have
>> hard-coded work-flows or highly-specific user configurations.
>>
>>> I agree that monolith is completely uncommon tool and I would not expect
>>> the majority of users to have it installed, but the same functionality
>>> utilising built-in url.el (as a default) should be acceptable.
>>
>> The question is: which functionality? A simple downloading tool or a
>> full archival tool? Achieving similar functionality to org-board or
>> monolith would a big task, since they aim to download an archival
>> version of a webpage (including all resources). In addition, with
>> archiving you also quickly run into the complexity of versioning based
>> on time archived. There's also the challenge of mapping the downloaded
>> files to metadata (specifically the original url). Org-board currently
>> handles both of these very well.
>>
>> I suppose there would be a few options depending on what the aims are:
>>
>> 1. At the simple end, include little more than than a quick and dirty
>>    way of downloading a single resource (html, pdf, jpeg) using url.el
>>    or wget (or optionally, monolith) and putting that in the attachment
>>    folder. Those who want full archiving of all resources could use
>>    other tools like org-board or org-web-tools.
>>
>> 2. At the (much) more complex end, it would be to code out a robust
>>    archiving solution on top of url.el or wget.
>>
>> 3. Another, possibly simpler option... Add a command to the dispatcher
>>    that allows the user to invoke a custom function that is called with
>>    the attachment directory as the default-directory. This would enable
>>    more end-user flexibility, such as the ability to use
>>    wkhtmtoimage/wkhtmltopdf, monolith, phantom.js, archive.is, etc.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Matt


- -- 
[ stardiviner ]
       I try to make every word tell the meaning that I want to express.

       Blog: https://stardiviner.github.io/
       IRC(freenode): stardiviner, Matrix: stardiviner
       GPG: F09F650D7D674819892591401B5DF1C95AE89AC3
      
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFIBAEBCAAyFiEE8J9lDX1nSBmJJZFAG13xyVromsMFAl7QbiAUHG51bWJjaGls
ZEBnbWFpbC5jb20ACgkQG13xyVromsP+zQf/fR+EfMEqnXjb7GHaQFy6c7oKwYV6
ha8Wn4surO/drg5jgGXAyCpU72ru9Q1hKlxxlUYI/ZVexiCZU8U4masVHxOIbMWG
2PrtBAJgVcC87jrYufTF+bnWfDBmNMgMtpCALa4NQ2tH83vMKSkpBK42vRSIWK61
YUbGUD0aPdUCjVz5Cwa5xfZe2i9phPPg6ipjBCm+sIdzOeFL8Dj/34dtPW1G/sOE
LTFyntcWn44xpb9mjSgN6EWC1Y9LJYSPTyP0PWVu5JXBoQfA+4vf5i7UakLurI46
+fBPPWNkb48yRc5i5OTxnI3Nxxk5YlQQbXZStMmKuqpIKmsNJsVjqfGa+g==
=8LEN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----