Is there any reason we don't use a compiled HTML help file (.chm), instead of having help.html and the help folder for portable apps?
New: NAPS2 (Feb 24, 2025), Platform 29.5.3 (Jun 27, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
No Ads!, Please donate today
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
We can view HTML files in any browser we choose, and it's more flexible. We can also get those awesome graphics
I would also argue that CHM is not cross-platform whereas HTML is, and this site is a promoter of cross-platform applications and standards (either directly or indirectly).
CHM is not viewable in Firefox. It will only work using Windows Help (which is IE). There is a Firefox extension available, but discussing it is pointless as we can't bundle it.
CHM files are much harder to develop than HTML files which everyone can develop.
CHM files are no cross-platform and will not open when running under Wine.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
What if we used a .maf or .mht file?
"It's just an online installer. It's not going to mug you.", JTH
"The shell is the key to unlock Linux's greatest advantages."
From wikipedia: "Few browsers support this format, and the process for saving a web page along with its resources as an MHTML file is not standardized across those browsers that do. Due to this, a web page saved as an MHTML file using one browser may render differently on another."
There's no reason to overthink this. Just use the help.html file and keep images in other. Nice and easy. Works on ALL browsers. Works on ALL platforms. Easily edited by anyone with any text editor.
MHT and CHM, in this case, are solutions searching for a problem. There's no problem with using HTML.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I can successfully open CHM files in Wine; the Wine help viewer is extremely feeble and fairly useless, but it does allow you to view the content. I myself use xCHM in Linux which, while not perfect is fairly good.
I am a Christian and a developer and moderator here.
“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1
.CHMs don't work on Vista/7 w/o a plugin.
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
The Microsoft help viewer is still there... what are you needing a plug-in for?
I am a Christian and a developer and moderator here.
“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1
What are you talking about?
I've been opening CHM's perfectly fine on newly installed Vista's and Win 7's.
I think he's talking about the old help files (.hlp). To open these on Vista upwards you need to install WinHlp32
"Der Klügere gibt nach, deshalb regieren Dumme die Welt."
The compiled HTML help file format has its pros and cons, its times when it's useful and times when it's not the right tool; for starters, it's not fitted to a single page, as we have, only really for a full manual or something with at least half a dozen pages - for our help.html it'd be functionally overkill. While we could then put pages like the general portable application support in it, I think this would then decrease its usefulness as users then wouldn't get the benefit of up-to-date information which you get by using the online source.
In regards to people's comments above; CHM can be better for some things as you end up with a fairly (at least, more than "any browser at all") consistent rendering engine - MSHTML, viz. Trident. CHM files are if anything more portable than HTML as they will open faster if a browser is not open, and they won't have issues like leaving cache files or more likely history items behind on the host machine. As far as I can see from your last comment, agdurrette, I think you're just trying to consolidate several files into one. Avoid something like MHTML; it has none of the benefits of CHM and misses some of the benefits of HTML. Being tied to Internet Explorer it also is less portable, leaving unavoidable traces behind.
For a complete project like the PortableApps.com Launcher though, having a CHM file is useful, as the new generation documentation I'm writing with Sphinx is many pages already. With Sphinx generating HTML files is
make htmland making a CHM file is justmake htmlhelpand then compile its output with HTML Help Workshop. When it's that easy I think it's useful.Something like the whole PortableApps.com Support section could be made into a help file, I think, and done with RST (the file format used with Sphinx); that could be convenient to provide help in the PortableApps.com Platform. I don't see any really worthwhile benefits at the moment compared to the current system of linking online.
Just for help.html I don't think it's worthwhile.
I am a Christian and a developer and moderator here.
“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1
Has this changed recently because, here on XP, seach history and favourites are stored in %AppData%\Microsoft\HTML Help\hh.dat.
Test it with NSIS. Search the help file, save a few faourites, move to another machine and they are gone.
Along with the NSIS MRU... but that's for another topic
HTA files are HTML applications.
Essentially, they are HTML files with a .HTA extension. There are a few special tags in the HEAD, but they are really simple and very well documented.
The advantage of an HTA is that it behaves like an HTML file, but it runs as a stand-alone app in every current version of Windows.
The current files could be used, just change their extensions.
The only downside is that it seems to always open links in IE.
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
Could the Open Document Format be of any use here?
PortableApps.com Advocate
html can be opened with any browser, ergo about 99% of all PCs are able to open it.
Odt can only be opned by Open Office, Abiword and a few others, making it impossible to open on a standard windows company PC.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
Ok thinking about it I realise that HTML is better suited for ubiquity.
Note that Microsoft Office 2007+ can open ODT by default. There's a plugin required for earlier versions. With HTML being an option, ODT isn't practical but thought I'd point it out so you'd know.
PortableApps.com Advocate
PDF!
PDF's are well-known for their big fat security issues, and I doubt that's going to change anytime soon. Especially with all the malicious PDF's going around, many places are blocking PDF files entirely, and most are restricting them.
"The question I would like to know, is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. All we know about it is that the Answer is Forty-two, which is a little aggravating."
Errrr... it was sarcasm dude! I don't see what the big problem is with HTML files. The only thing that I like about Windows Help files over regular HTML files is the built-in ability to search, and the innate ability to index and produce a contents. However, if your documentation is just a single HTML file then those points are typically not of huge concern for the most part.
If you want fancy capabilities like that then you could always start distributing help files as TiddlyWiki or StickWiki HTML files.
Let's move on to the next outlandish file format... I think all documentation should be embedded in JPEG images and users should have to crack codes to get at it.