I don't think you can provide a URL to a WARC that can be clicked to view its content directly in your browser.

At the very least, WARC could have been used as the container ("tar") format after the preamble of Gwtar. But even there, given that this format doesn't work without a web server (unlike SingleFile, mentioned in the article), I feel like there's a lot to gain by separating the "viewer" (Gwtar's javascript) from the content, such that the viewer can be updated over time without changing the archives.

I certainly could be missing something (I've thought about this problem for all of a few minutes here), but surely you could host "warcviewer.html" and "warcviewer.js" next to "mycoolwarc.warc" "mycoolwrc.cdx" with little to no loss of convenience, and call it a day?

	▲	gwern 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You could potentially use WARC instead of Tar as the appended container, sure, but that's a lot of complexity, WARC doesn't serialize the rendered page (so what is the greater 'fidelity' actually getting you?) and SingleFile doesn't support WARC, and I don't see a specific advantage that a Gwtar using WARC would have. The page rendered what it rendered. And if you choose to require separate files and break single-file, then you have many options. > surely you could host "warcviewer.html" and "warcviewer.js" next to "mycoolwarc.warc" "mycoolwrc.cdx" I'm not familiar with warcviewer.js and Googling isn't showing it. Are you thinking of https://github.com/webrecorder/wabac.js ?