Talk:MHTML

message: Edit: 04/02/2008 (U.S. date format). This has changed. According to the previously mentioned bug (#18764) Firefox has supported MHT/MHTML since at least 2004-03-21 (see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18764#c38). More specifically, the changelog shows:
vladd@bugzilla.org  2004-04-08 03:20:05 PDT  Summary  RFE: Full rfc2557 MHTML multipart/related support in BROWSER  Full rfc2557 MHTML multipart/related support in BROWSER.
:However, the bug does still show as open as of this date, so perhaps full functionality is not present or maybe someone just needs to verify the fix and close the bug. The writer lacks the skill and experience to do so.
--05:08, 3 April 2008 216.84.63.194
:Information on Firefox 3 should be included. 82.41.15.93 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Having researched this further I found I was able to add functionality to FF3b5(and all current versions it seems) by using an add-on, MAF, and changing it slightly. Should this be mentioned, or is it too obscure?82.41.15.93 (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  firefox support 

message: Hi, fellow Wikipedians
I rewrote the Editing Support section of this article. However, in order to provide verification I used the software program itself as the source and reference for verification, adding links to publicly-available trial versions wherever possible.
Now, using a software program as a source in Wikipedia, as far as I know, is legal: Many computer game articles (e.g. Final Fantasy X-2) are already doing this, referring to a specific dialog in a specific part of a computer game.
However, I understand that this type of source is, shall we say, expensive to verify. Therefore, if someone has better sources, please do not hesitate to modify current sources. In the meantime, please do not remove these sources if you do not have a better replacement, unless there is a change in Wikipedia rules.
Fleet Command (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed the editing support section. It had a heavy bias on Microsoft products and isn't really noteworthy. It's just HTML with base64. A text editor can do it in theory and there are 1000s of text editors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.165.125 (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing support 

message: OK, right now I'm editing the article and found two interesting "bugs".
source 1:  says IE 5 add mhtml file support!
source 2:  says IE4 add support for mhtml.
what is right? can somebody test it? mabdul 18:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wikipedia, MHTML support was was added in IE5: Internet Explorer 5#Overview. In know that Wikipedia can not be used as a reference for itself, but I think this is correct. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IE 4 & IE5 

message: What if any security risk does this file format pose?  I feel like a user could be prompted to download this and not think to be as cautious as they would be with, say, an exe.  Can things wrapped in MIME HTML execute locally, for instance?  If so, this should be documented.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.165.243 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a forum. If you have a particular source of information you feel should be added to the article that's fine, but otherwise... ɹəəpıɔnı 08:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security Risk? 

message: Google Chrome 15 won't support MHTML. I saw those sources, but the fact is that simple: there is no support of MHTML in stable user versions of Chrome yet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.227.209.240 (talk) 10:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Chrome 

message: I've just removed all the pointless, trivial details from the browser support section. Please refrain from making this article feature-complete with all the unnecessary, intricate compatibility concerns and references to "known issues" in bug trackers. This is an encyclopaedia, not a archive of pointless details.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.165.125 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaned up article 

message: The section regarding browser support addresses only support for "Save As", whereas there is a seperate issue of whether or not the browser supports content served in this format, which are not necessarily one and the same.  Webpages can use mhtml to serve content such as encoded images, which is certainly supported by IE, but I'm unsure if it is supported by other browsers.  If someone can find definitive resource on this then that would be an important addition that should be included.
199.44.231.8 (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Saving vs Parsing Support

message: This article links to a StackOverflow question as a source, which in turn links back to this article. StackOverflow is not a valid source, nor is a bug report for an open source program. I removed the offending paragraph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.126.121 (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stackoverflow as a source? 

message: I'm using Opera 22.0 now and until now I still can't save nor load MHT file from/to this Chromium-based Opera (may be in the future versions, but this current one certainly does NOT!).
The article writer should recheck his bloated unsync-ed opera webfantasies again.
>>Opera has supported MHTML since version 16. It's undocumented, but if you use the configuration line included in the main article, it will activate it. Vivaldi supports it the same way(disabled by default, but possible to enable it through built-in configurations). Also, "bloated unsync-ed opera webfantasies" is not a very professional way to discuss what you believe to be incorrect facts in the article.
AFAIK, only Opera 12.xx and below (Presto-based) support MHTML file load/save with ultimate compatibility+compactness besides fast load/save, and that's far-stunning than MSIE can do (MSIE 7.0).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.215.66.77 (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are you sure Opera 22.0 (Chromium-based) or Opera 15.0/16.0 and above really support MHTML? 

message: I'm noticing I can view an MHTML file locally (the page displays), but if I put it on a webserver, when I view it, I see the raw source.  (If I save it off the webserver and view that file locally - the page displays too; not surprising, the files are byte-for-byte identical.)
I'm guessing this is because the security issues have led (some) browsers to only process local MHTML files.  Something the article could cover.  (Reading between the lines, it seems support has been declining.)  
(PS: A comparison with Webarchive and Web ARChive would be helpful too.)
--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked?