| | > Since the "mirror" seems to be in every way
> indistinguishable from the original. We own the
> site so it isn't a "copy issue" but being ignorant
> of the facts, I just wondered if there was a good
> reason to not simply use the compiled htmls (which
> take a lot less space" and edit them as needed
> rather than work with the huge (and mostly bloated)
> original files. Is there something I am missing?
> The website is extremely simple and no more than 8
> or 9 pages.
The fact is that httrack will only copy reachable pages and associated data ;
dead pages (not references by any other page linked to the top index), and
unused material (images, css, js..) will just be ignored. You may also check
out the logs to detect broken links (404 and friends)
However, httrack will never copy original server-side script sources (for
example, php or asp pages), but only the produced content. This can be a great
feature: a bloated script-based site with static content can be mirrored into
a fully fast static version (possibly with daily/hourly automatic updates).
But this can also be a problem (for example, a page giving the current weather
temperature)
Other issue are generally due to complex javascript (httrack may not detect
all poroduced links), embedded links in flash applets, and so on.
Note: httrack slightly modify the original page code (not the display) by
putting a comment in copied data ("Mirrored from ..") for archiving purpose
(it was originally designed, before there was a cache, to allow trivial
updates) ; you may want to change that (Options / Browser ID / HTML Footer =
"(none)")
| |
