This site will have limited functionality while we undergo maintenance to improve your experience. If an article doesn't solve your issue and you want to ask a question, we have our support community waiting to help you at @FirefoxSupport on Twitter and/r/firefox on Reddit.

Avatar for Username

Search Support

Avoid support scams. We will never ask you to call or text a phone number or share personal information. Please report suspicious activity using the “Report Abuse” option.

Learn More

This thread was archived. Please ask a new question if you need help.

Save dom to file

usersname
usersname
more options

Is it possible to save the dom output without the use of any addons etc? Is there a config setting or any other option to easily "save as" and keep the dom output for offline viewing? Thanks

FF 54.0.1 (32-bit)

Is it possible to save the dom output without the use of any addons etc? Is there a config setting or any other option to easily "save as" and keep the dom output for offline viewing? Thanks FF 54.0.1 (32-bit)

All Replies (3)

jscher2000 - Support Volunteer
jscher2000 - Support Volunteer
  • Top 25 Contributor
more options

If you select the entire page (Ctrl+a), right-click, and View Selection Source, Firefox will open a new tab with the source of the page as modified by scripts (vs. the original source prior to DOM changes which is what you see when using Ctrl+u).

Is that what you had in mind, or something more structured?

cor-el
cor-el
  • Moderator
  • Top 10 Contributor
more options

You can also look at the built-in developer tools like the Inspector. You can for instance use the left pane of the Inspector to copy the page code to the clipboard (select the HTML tag and open the right-click context menu: Edit HTML to get the current DOM).

jscher2000 - Support Volunteer
jscher2000 - Support Volunteer
  • Top 25 Contributor
more options

Now that you mention it, I remember the Inspector includes a feature to right-click any element, click Copy, then Outer HTML. Opening the Inspector and doing that on the <html> element probably is faster than my original suggestion.