Create a script that will completely strip all javascript from an
HTML file, so that it can be viewed off-line without all that unnecessary
crap.

Here is mine (it's actually a command):

perl -0777 -pe 's/<script.*?script>//gs' dirty_file.html | perl -0777 -pe 's/<noscript.*?script>//gs' - > clean-file.html

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Le 24-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> Create a script that will completely strip all javascript from an
> HTML file, so that it can be viewed off-line without all that unnecessary
> crap.
>
> Here is mine (it's actually a command):
>
> perl -0777 -pe 's/<script.*?script>//gs' dirty_file.html | perl -0777 -pe 's/<noscript.*?script>//gs' - > clean-file.html

OK, so clearly, you didn't understand what you did, so maybe you didn't
copy it from Internet for once. Or if you did, you did it from the
questions, not from the answers.

You should try again. For your information, the noscript tag is there do
be displayed when javascript is deactivated. So instead of removing it,
you really should keep it. I mean: you should remove the noscript tag
but keep the noscript content.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 24 Aug 2024 18:36:37 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

>
> You should try again. For your information, the noscript tag is there do
> be displayed when javascript is deactivated. So instead of removing it,
> you really should keep it.
>

But, after the first pass, there ain't no javascript remaining. So why
the fuck would anyone want a message saying that the javascript cannot
be "displayed?"

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

It would be equivalent to stripping all images but keeping the "alt"
attribute (although that would be more difficult).

You are an IDIOT.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Le 24-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On 24 Aug 2024 18:36:37 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>
>> You should try again. For your information, the noscript tag is there do
>> be displayed when javascript is deactivated. So instead of removing it,
>> you really should keep it.
>>
>
> But, after the first pass, there ain't no javascript remaining.

OK, so, I get a simpler way to remove javascript from a file:
"rm bad_file_full_of_javascript.html"
It's faster, easier and it will do the job: after the first pass there
will be no more javascript remaining.

> So why the fuck would anyone want a message saying that the javascript
> cannot be "displayed?"

If I agree on the part that javascript is shit, I disagree on the part
that all programmers are stupid. The noscript can display more
interesting things than what your limited brain can imagine.

> It would be equivalent to stripping all images but keeping the "alt"
> attribute (although that would be more difficult).

Yes. that's what you should do. The alt attribute is very important for
images even if it's no that often well used. When someone is blind, it's
the only way to know what's missed.

> You are an IDIOT.

Yes, as I already told you, I know it. Can't you improve?

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 24-08-2024, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> a écrit :
> Le 24-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
>> On 24 Aug 2024 18:36:37 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> You should try again. For your information, the noscript tag is there do
>>> be displayed when javascript is deactivated. So instead of removing it,
>>> you really should keep it.
>>>
>>
>> But, after the first pass, there ain't no javascript remaining.
>
> OK, so, I get a simpler way to remove javascript from a file:
> "rm bad_file_full_of_javascript.html"
> It's faster, easier and it will do the job: after the first pass there
> will be no more javascript remaining.

Let say I suppose you want your file after the process, so you can do:
echo "No more cacascript" > bad_file_full_of_javascript.html
instead. It will have the same purpose of removing javascript without
taking care of the consequences.

If you don't like the word cacasript, you can use javascript instead, it
will fulfil the same purpose. In french "caca" means something like
"shit" in English, so it's a pun on words any javascript hater could
like.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 8/24/2024 5:07 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> In french "caca" means something like "shit" in English, so it's a pun
> on words any javascript hater could like.

You know you're posting in comp.os.linux.advocaca?

On 24 Aug 2024 20:58:23 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> The noscript can display more
> interesting things than what your limited brain can imagine.
>

The sites that I want to strip do not use javascript for content
but only for advertising, analytics, and other such useless nonsense.

In these cases, stripping out the noscript tags has no consequence.

But not only do I strip the javascript. I also remove all .css and
..js files. It is unbelievable how much useless junk is included with
the "modern" web site.

Then I can view off-line in either graphical links (links -g) or
palemoon.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 19:36 this Saturday (GMT):
> On 24 Aug 2024 18:36:37 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>>
>> You should try again. For your information, the noscript tag is there do
>> be displayed when javascript is deactivated. So instead of removing it,
>> you really should keep it.
>>
>
> But, after the first pass, there ain't no javascript remaining. So why
> the fuck would anyone want a message saying that the javascript cannot
> be "displayed?"
>
> Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>
> It would be equivalent to stripping all images but keeping the "alt"
> attribute (although that would be more difficult).
>
> You are an IDIOT.

Isn't the point of the alt attribute to tell you what the image is
communicating? If the image is missing, you still want to be able to
tell what it was..

Also, if you want no js, I'd recommend installing NoScript.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:20:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> Also, if you want no js, I'd recommend installing NoScript.

Or use lynx... The problem is with react, angular, and other popular
frameworks without JS or TS there ain't no there there. Even limited use
of bootstrap, mustache, handlebars, jquery and so forth will break.

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:20:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

>
> Isn't the point of the alt attribute to tell you what the image is
> communicating? If the image is missing, you still want to be able to
> tell what it was..
>

Idiot.

An "attribute" is part of the image tag and thus one cannot remove
the image tag w/o removing the attribute.

This was just a facetious response to someone who cannot separate
"script" tags from "noscript" tags.

>
> Also, if you want no js, I'd recommend installing NoScript.
>

Idiot. I am talking about downloading and long-term storage.
When javascript is stripped out, then the remaining HTML mark up
will be accessible off-line for the foreseeable future.

I hope that your employer does not read Usenet else he may terminate
you for incompetence.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 26 Aug 2024 19:39:08 GMT, rbowman wrote:

>
> Or use lynx...
>

Why don't you stick lynx up your fucking asshole.

Haaaaaaaa, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Fucking ignoramus idiot.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 8/26/2024 4:23 PM, Laughable Larry Piet wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:20:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:

> I hope that your employer does not read Usenet else he may terminate
> you for incompetence.

PKB

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:23 this Monday (GMT):
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:20:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>>
>> Isn't the point of the alt attribute to tell you what the image is
>> communicating? If the image is missing, you still want to be able to
>> tell what it was..
>>
>
> Idiot.
>
> An "attribute" is part of the image tag and thus one cannot remove
> the image tag w/o removing the attribute.
>
> This was just a facetious response to someone who cannot separate
> "script" tags from "noscript" tags.
>
>>
>> Also, if you want no js, I'd recommend installing NoScript.
>>
>
> Idiot. I am talking about downloading and long-term storage.
> When javascript is stripped out, then the remaining HTML mark up
> will be accessible off-line for the foreseeable future.
>
> I hope that your employer does not read Usenet else he may terminate
> you for incompetence.

Ah sorry ^^ I misunderstood..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
wrote:
>Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:23 this Monday (GMT):
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:20:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't the point of the alt attribute to tell you what the image is
>>> communicating? If the image is missing, you still want to be able to
>>> tell what it was..
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>> An "attribute" is part of the image tag and thus one cannot remove
>> the image tag w/o removing the attribute.
>>
>> This was just a facetious response to someone who cannot separate
>> "script" tags from "noscript" tags.
>>
>>> Also, if you want no js, I'd recommend installing NoScript.
>>
>> Idiot. I am talking about downloading and long-term storage.
>> When javascript is stripped out, then the remaining HTML mark up
>> will be accessible off-line for the foreseeable future.
>>
>> I hope that your employer does not read Usenet else he may terminate
>> you for incompetence.
>
>Ah sorry ^^ I misunderstood..

You shouldn't apologize to him, he has no concept of the value of
anyone but himself, in reality he's a two-bit contributor and you're
actually someone interesting.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote at 17:37 this Tuesday (GMT):
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
> wrote:
>>Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:23 this Monday (GMT):
>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:20:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't the point of the alt attribute to tell you what the image is
>>>> communicating? If the image is missing, you still want to be able to
>>>> tell what it was..
>>>
>>> Idiot.
>>>
>>> An "attribute" is part of the image tag and thus one cannot remove
>>> the image tag w/o removing the attribute.
>>>
>>> This was just a facetious response to someone who cannot separate
>>> "script" tags from "noscript" tags.
>>>
>>>> Also, if you want no js, I'd recommend installing NoScript.
>>>
>>> Idiot. I am talking about downloading and long-term storage.
>>> When javascript is stripped out, then the remaining HTML mark up
>>> will be accessible off-line for the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> I hope that your employer does not read Usenet else he may terminate
>>> you for incompetence.
>>
>>Ah sorry ^^ I misunderstood..
>
>
> You shouldn't apologize to him, he has no concept of the value of
> anyone but himself, in reality he's a two-bit contributor and you're
> actually someone interesting.

Thx ^^"
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
wrote:

>> You [candycanearter07] shouldn't apologize to him [Larry/Russell], he has no concept of the value of
>> anyone but himself, in reality he's a two-bit contributor and you're
>> actually someone interesting.
>
>Thx ^^"

To have someone like you in the group is encouraging to me. That
Linux will continue to be something important.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:59:02 -0400, Joel wrote:

> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
> wrote:
>
>>> You [candycanearter07] shouldn't apologize to him [Larry/Russell], he has no concept of the value of
>>> anyone but himself, in reality he's a two-bit contributor and you're
>>> actually someone interesting.
>>
>>Thx ^^"
>
>
> To have someone like you in the group is encouraging to me. That
> Linux will continue to be something important.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

Joel, Joel. He got no life and he got no soul.

He lives his life in a toilet bowl.

He no work but is on the dole.

He hangs on COLA like an ugly mole.

His every post is an empty troll.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

P.S. He also regularly shits the bed.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

On 8/27/2024 1:37 PM, Joel wrote:
> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
> wrote:
>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:23 this Monday (GMT):
>>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:20:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Isn't the point of the alt attribute to tell you what the image is
>>>> communicating? If the image is missing, you still want to be able to
>>>> tell what it was..
>>>
>>> Idiot.
>>>
>>> An "attribute" is part of the image tag and thus one cannot remove
>>> the image tag w/o removing the attribute.
>>>
>>> This was just a facetious response to someone who cannot separate
>>> "script" tags from "noscript" tags.
>>>
>>>> Also, if you want no js, I'd recommend installing NoScript.
>>>
>>> Idiot. I am talking about downloading and long-term storage.
>>> When javascript is stripped out, then the remaining HTML mark up
>>> will be accessible off-line for the foreseeable future.
>>>
>>> I hope that your employer does not read Usenet else he may terminate
>>> you for incompetence.
>>
>> Ah sorry ^^ I misunderstood..
>
>
> You shouldn't apologize to him, he has no concept of the value of
> anyone but himself, in reality he's a two-bit contributor and you're
> actually someone interesting.

Feeb could've been a valuable cola poster, but he never successfully
made the transition into adulthood. His many professional and personal
failures reduced him to behaving like a deranged child.

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote at 22:03 this Tuesday (GMT):
> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 15:59:02 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>> candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You [candycanearter07] shouldn't apologize to him [Larry/Russell], he has no concept of the value of
>>>>> anyone but himself, in reality he's a two-bit contributor and you're
>>>>> actually someone interesting.
>>>>
>>>>Thx ^^"
>>>
>>> To have someone like you in the group is encouraging to me. That
>>> Linux will continue to be something important.
>>
>>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>>
>>Joel, Joel. He got no life and he got no soul.
>>
>>He lives his life in a toilet bowl.
>>
>>He no work but is on the dole.
>>
>>He hangs on COLA like an ugly mole.
>>
>>His every post is an empty troll.
>>
>>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>>
>>P.S. He also regularly shits the bed.
>>
>>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!
>
>
> I am not going to feed your talentless trolling, Larry. My box is
> strong with openSUSE. candycanearter07's is better than yours, too.
> You're just all obsessed with the specifics, to where you end up with
> a joke of a computer.

Oh cool, I don't think I've seen openSUSE in the wild before.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Le 26-08-2024, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:20:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>>
>> Isn't the point of the alt attribute to tell you what the image is
>> communicating? If the image is missing, you still want to be able to
>> tell what it was..
>
> Idiot.

You granted him a badge of honor. You granted me more than him so, I'm
not jealous.

> An "attribute" is part of the image tag and thus one cannot remove
> the image tag w/o removing the attribute.

You are confused. Your inability to do something isn't the same thing as
the impossibility do do something. As your only ability is to insult
others,

> This was just a facetious response to someone who cannot separate
> "script" tags from "noscript" tags.

Nonononono. You are the one providing a script unable to separate the
tags. Not me. Don't switch sides like that.

>> Also, if you want no js, I'd recommend installing NoScript.
>
> Idiot.

A second badge of honor in the same post. I'm not sure you ever granted
me that. I'm almost jealous.

> I hope that your employer does not read Usenet else he may terminate
> you for incompetence.

If his employer is reading Usenet and is understanding what he wrote and
what you wrote (not all employer have the technical skills to follow a
technical discussion), he'll know how he can trust him more and avoid
you at all cost.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On 8/27/2024 12:00 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:

> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote at 20:23 this Monday (GMT):
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 13:20:05 -0000 (UTC), candycanearter07 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Isn't the point of the alt attribute to tell you what the image is
>>> communicating? If the image is missing, you still want to be able to
>>> tell what it was..
>>>
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>> An "attribute" is part of the image tag and thus one cannot remove
>> the image tag w/o removing the attribute.
>>
>> This was just a facetious response to someone who cannot separate
>> "script" tags from "noscript" tags.
>>
>>>
>>> Also, if you want no js, I'd recommend installing NoScript.
>>>
>>
>> Idiot. I am talking about downloading and long-term storage.
>> When javascript is stripped out, then the remaining HTML mark up
>> will be accessible off-line for the foreseeable future.
>>
>> I hope that your employer does not read Usenet else he may terminate
>> you for incompetence.
>
>
> Ah sorry ^^ I misunderstood..

I recommend you NEVER apologize to that miserable, lying wackjob.