> I guess this is due to the webpages and not Diigo's fault. > >> Has anyone else noticed that, too? > > The cache page include the content, but not the format files, such as css > files in the web page. Just like google cache page.
perhaps, but really shouldnt these files be cached? or at least the CSS? what is the point of not caching the CSS? so that they'll look ugly? "Different"? Because anyway, since annotations are not available on the cached pages that the presentation of the page shouldnt matter anyway?
started by Oliver S. on 06 Apr 07
Here is an example:
1) Cached copy:
http://www.diigo.com/cached?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dreammailer.de
2) Original version:
http://www.dreammailer.de/
I guess this is due to the webpages and not Diigo's fault. Has anyone else noticed that, too?
> Has anyone else noticed that, too?
The cache page include the content, but not the format files, such as css files in the web page. Just like google cache page.
> I guess this is due to the webpages and not Diigo's fault.
>
>> Has anyone else noticed that, too?
>
> The cache page include the content, but not the format files, such as css
> files in the web page. Just like google cache page.
perhaps, but really shouldnt these files be cached? or at least the CSS? what is the point of not caching the CSS? so that they'll look ugly? "Different"? Because anyway, since annotations are not available on the cached pages that the presentation of the page shouldnt matter anyway?
but please improve caching for a realistic view.
Probably a "view pdf Version" would be nice :)
It's all about caching...
THX.
In Diigo 4.0 beta you'll find user-produced HTML and PNG versions of selected snapshots, alongside traditional robot-produced cached copies.
How are contributors to this (old) topic finding the latest features?