Extracting HTML Version of site

Topics: General
Sep 27, 2011 at 9:56 AM


 Hi Guys,

    One of my friend owns a business and he was pretty impressed with Orchard when I showed it to him. I helped him to create a basic website with a few pages and navigation hosting it using WebMatrix. He wants to put the website on his server but I have found out that they have Linux hosting and only have access to their folder via FTP. I was wondering if there is a way to just extract the HTML version  so that he could dump the folders and pages as he does not have any processing requirement at all. I know this was not the right choice for him but I was wondering if Orchard has something for him. He also has a contact page module which probably uses some ASP.NET code for send mail.

Any advice would be appreciated



Sep 27, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Well, the Mono branch is in dire need of a refresh... Extracting HTML seems like a bad idea. Might as well do the thing in HTML directly.

Sep 27, 2011 at 7:35 PM

I think there are crawlers for webpages freely available that also download the html output (= a "website downloader"), and preserve internal linking. But I really think this is a bad option and your friend should invest a very small fee in buying an ASP.NET hosting.

Sep 28, 2011 at 12:42 AM
Edited Sep 28, 2011 at 12:46 AM

Thanks a lot guys, I have been researching this as well and I agree with you both. He already has a plain HTML website built using Frontpage but very hard to maintain. I was planning to automate some of his tasks for him in Silverlight  & using WCF RIA services but as moonlight is still in preview mode for version 4 (partial implementation) this is not the way to go for the moment and he should be buying an ASP.NET hosting plan. 

As he really loves the Orchard way of maintaining his site maybe a good website copier would be all he needs for the moment, will have to try this out

Cheers for the advice

Sep 28, 2011 at 3:37 AM

Actually a lot of big websites use this "static clone" technique. Even some expensive CMS. In case if an anonymously access website, without any dynamically generated content, it makes sense.



Sep 28, 2011 at 5:25 PM

True, but there is still a CMS behind it, and the motivation for it is performance. The motivation here is very different and I think it matters. If you can sell them an ASP.NET server that's great, but if they are a Linux shop they might be better off with something like Drupal. What do I know? :)