4 ms·

Markdown is a good in between. It's still mostly plain text, with just enough structure. Can also be read straight without rendering too.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
Can I just be a little anal and say, Markdown is 100% plain text. HTML is plain text too. Org-Mode, RestructuredText, etc. etc. It's all just plain text. -- update -- Okay then people. Go open a Word Document in your text editor and see what you get. If it is smart, like Emacs, it will open a directory of xml files. How about if you open up a ipython notebook? not plain text. But RMarkdown is. -- update 2 -- Well, what does the Linux Information Project say about Plain Text? (http://www.linfo.org/plain_text.html http://www.linfo.org/plain_text.html) - Plain text refers to any string (i.e., finite sequence of characters) that consists entirely of printable characters (i.e., human-readable characters) and, optionally, a very few specific types of control characters (e.g., characters indicating a tab or the start of a new line). - However, plain text can contain instructions that are written in plain text for formatting, for adding images, for creating hyperlinks, etc. that can be used by programs that convert plain text into other forms. That is, it can contain tags (i.e., instructions or indicators that are written in plain text) that tell a word processor, web browser or other program to format it in a certain way, including which typefaces and fonts to use, how to set the margins, where to underline the text and where to use bold or italic characters. - HTML (hypertext markup language) and XML (extensible markup language) are good examples of the use of instructions that (1) are used to convert plain text into some form of formatted text, (2) are written in plain text and (3) are embedded in the plain text documents that they are used to format. For example, the HTML tags <b> and </b>, although written in plain text, instruct any web browser that reads a file containing them to render (i.e., display) any plain text located between them in bold characters. Among the many other things that HTML can tell browsers are where to create hyperlinks, how to set margins, which images to use and where to insert them, which typefaces and fonts to use and where to render text in italics or underlined characters. www.linfo.org/plain_text.html
- D13Fd 5y ago
  That incorrect IMO. It's plain text with markup information, such that it can be rendered.
  - imafish 5y ago
    I disagree. The markup information makes sense on its own for structural purposes. There does not need to be any rendering engine.
- asdff 5y ago
  Where does it end? Technically every script in every language is plain text.
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    I'm afraid that if you can't accept this, then you may have a hard time accepting the existence of any kind of "plain" text at all. After all, what text does not include format? This does. How? Well, a paragraph is separated by a new line. Sentences are separated by periods and the first word of sentence of capitalized. White space is used to delimit words within sentences--with some exceptions, as just shown. Dammit, I guess this isn't plain text either.
    - rspeele 5y ago
      Really I don't think there is an objective definition of a term like "plain text" and it's even context sensitive. If I tell somebody my software can be configured with a JSON file, and they ask "what's a JSON file?", I might respond that it's "just a plain text format" to convey that they can open the thing in Notepad and have a reasonable chance of understanding and editing it. On the other hand, if I get some software that receives emails in an inbox and parses them to load data into a table, and it claims to support "plain text emails only" I wouldn't send it HTML emails and think I'm doing it right because "HTML is plain text". If you absolutely must have an objective definition, I might try saying that "plain text" is WYSIWYG Unicode or ASCII. WYSIWYG meaning the formatting it exhibits when displayed is the same formatting it exhibits in the editor, and Unicode or ASCII meaning only the formatting available from those character encodings is available (so a Word Document doesn't count as plain text even though it is WYSIWYG).
Jtsummers 5y ago
Org-mode as well, for those who can get into emacs. Especially as a programmer, the code blocks are awesome. Want a quick analysis of some data in the same file? Toss it into a table, write a code block, run the code block, get a new table as output. I can export it to a variety of formats without much trouble in order to share with others.
- Aperocky 5y ago
  Editor war commence! Joking, but as someone that has mostly used vim, I have the feeling that emacs is trying to do everything within emacs while vim are supposed to be used in tandem with other unix tools.
  - Jtsummers 5y ago
    Definitely a factor. There are still a lot of emacs use-cases which call out to or depend on unix tools, but yes. It's more common to try and "live" in emacs than in vim, whereas vim is more of a component within a larger experience.
  - Lio 5y ago
    I saw this new Org mode port for NeoVim[1]. I wouldn't expect this to be anywhere near feature complete but for an old vim hand like me it's interesting. I'm a big fan of VimWiki personally but I'm in awe of some of the Org-mode demos I've seen. 1. https://github.com/kristijanhusak/orgmode.nvim https://github.com/kristijanhusak/orgmode.nvim
  - christophilus 5y ago
    I like Kakoune for this reason. I just wish it had a few more niceties.
  - tincholio 5y ago
    The nice thing about org is how seamless it is to do all this. I do think that vim-style modal editing is the best way to go, but Emacs is to me a much better text manipulation platform than Vim is, and you can still get the Vim experience with evil mode.
jimmux 5y ago
Markdown and a sensible directory structure has been working great for me. Put it somewhere synced to all the devices, and it's the quickest and easiest form to read and write anywhere. If I really need a nicely formatted copy I can produce one easily, but this is rare. In the right editor syntax highlighting makes the structure obvious, and automatic formatting/linting keeps things sensible. Any requirement for multimedia has been satisfied with links to local files or online sources. The only issue has been collaboration, but in my experience it's easier to just use whatever my collaborators prefer. I can still have my own markdown as a searchable and familiar origin point, with links into whatever they are using.

jonnycomputer 5y ago

Can I just be a little anal and say, Markdown is 100% plain text. HTML is plain text too. Org-Mode, RestructuredText, etc. etc. It's all just plain text. -- update -- Okay then people. Go open a Word Document in your text editor and see what you get. If it is smart, like Emacs, it will open a directory of xml files. How about if you open up a ipython notebook? not plain text. But RMarkdown is. -- update 2 -- Well, what does the Linux Information Project say about Plain Text? (http://www.linfo.org/plain_text.html http://www.linfo.org/plain_text.html) - Plain text refers to any string (i.e., finite sequence of characters) that consists entirely of printable characters (i.e., human-readable characters) and, optionally, a very few specific types of control characters (e.g., characters indicating a tab or the start of a new line). - However, plain text can contain instructions that are written in plain text for formatting, for adding images, for creating hyperlinks, etc. that can be used by programs that convert plain text into other forms. That is, it can contain tags (i.e., instructions or indicators that are written in plain text) that tell a word processor, web browser or other program to format it in a certain way, including which typefaces and fonts to use, how to set the margins, where to underline the text and where to use bold or italic characters. - HTML (hypertext markup language) and XML (extensible markup language) are good examples of the use of instructions that (1) are used to convert plain text into some form of formatted text, (2) are written in plain text and (3) are embedded in the plain text documents that they are used to format. For example, the HTML tags <b> and </b>, although written in plain text, instruct any web browser that reads a file containing them to render (i.e., display) any plain text located between them in bold characters. Among the many other things that HTML can tell browsers are where to create hyperlinks, how to set margins, which images to use and where to insert them, which typefaces and fonts to use and where to render text in italics or underlined characters. www.linfo.org/plain_text.html

D13Fd 5y ago
That incorrect IMO. It's plain text with markup information, such that it can be rendered.
- imafish 5y ago
  I disagree. The markup information makes sense on its own for structural purposes. There does not need to be any rendering engine.
asdff 5y ago
Where does it end? Technically every script in every language is plain text.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
  I'm afraid that if you can't accept this, then you may have a hard time accepting the existence of any kind of "plain" text at all. After all, what text does not include format? This does. How? Well, a paragraph is separated by a new line. Sentences are separated by periods and the first word of sentence of capitalized. White space is used to delimit words within sentences--with some exceptions, as just shown. Dammit, I guess this isn't plain text either.
  - rspeele 5y ago
    Really I don't think there is an objective definition of a term like "plain text" and it's even context sensitive. If I tell somebody my software can be configured with a JSON file, and they ask "what's a JSON file?", I might respond that it's "just a plain text format" to convey that they can open the thing in Notepad and have a reasonable chance of understanding and editing it. On the other hand, if I get some software that receives emails in an inbox and parses them to load data into a table, and it claims to support "plain text emails only" I wouldn't send it HTML emails and think I'm doing it right because "HTML is plain text". If you absolutely must have an objective definition, I might try saying that "plain text" is WYSIWYG Unicode or ASCII. WYSIWYG meaning the formatting it exhibits when displayed is the same formatting it exhibits in the editor, and Unicode or ASCII meaning only the formatting available from those character encodings is available (so a Word Document doesn't count as plain text even though it is WYSIWYG).

Jtsummers 5y ago

Org-mode as well, for those who can get into emacs. Especially as a programmer, the code blocks are awesome. Want a quick analysis of some data in the same file? Toss it into a table, write a code block, run the code block, get a new table as output. I can export it to a variety of formats without much trouble in order to share with others.

Aperocky 5y ago
Editor war commence! Joking, but as someone that has mostly used vim, I have the feeling that emacs is trying to do everything within emacs while vim are supposed to be used in tandem with other unix tools.
- Jtsummers 5y ago
  Definitely a factor. There are still a lot of emacs use-cases which call out to or depend on unix tools, but yes. It's more common to try and "live" in emacs than in vim, whereas vim is more of a component within a larger experience.
- Lio 5y ago
  I saw this new Org mode port for NeoVim[1]. I wouldn't expect this to be anywhere near feature complete but for an old vim hand like me it's interesting. I'm a big fan of VimWiki personally but I'm in awe of some of the Org-mode demos I've seen. 1. https://github.com/kristijanhusak/orgmode.nvim https://github.com/kristijanhusak/orgmode.nvim
- christophilus 5y ago
  I like Kakoune for this reason. I just wish it had a few more niceties.
- tincholio 5y ago
  The nice thing about org is how seamless it is to do all this. I do think that vim-style modal editing is the best way to go, but Emacs is to me a much better text manipulation platform than Vim is, and you can still get the Vim experience with evil mode.

jimmux 5y ago

Markdown and a sensible directory structure has been working great for me. Put it somewhere synced to all the devices, and it's the quickest and easiest form to read and write anywhere. If I really need a nicely formatted copy I can produce one easily, but this is rare. In the right editor syntax highlighting makes the structure obvious, and automatic formatting/linting keeps things sensible. Any requirement for multimedia has been satisfied with links to local files or online sources. The only issue has been collaboration, but in my experience it's easier to just use whatever my collaborators prefer. I can still have my own markdown as a searchable and familiar origin point, with links into whatever they are using.