3 ms·

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. -- up

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 and , 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).
    - jonnycomputer 5y ago
      sane
Aperocky 5y ago
I really don't think so but I did upvote you for your different opinion, I don't really think it should be downvoted like it did, arbitrary word definitions are just that - arbitrary, including opinions from Linux Info and of course me and you. What really decide them in the end is the public perception of the term in question.
- jonnycomputer 5y ago
 Are you sure? What about the blank line between these two paragraphs? Andwhydontiwritesentenceslikethis?
slightwinder 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. When people talk about plain text in that space, they usually mean the interaction level, not the technical level. Any cryptic rules which gives the text meaning in some parser is a rule the user need to first learn and internalize, which makes usage harder. Any tooling is an extra step you need to maintain for handling your texts. Of course, markdown and org-mode are relativ simple, but it stills needs tools, thus has extra requirements. It's not as plain and simple as starting notepad and call it a day.
- OrderlyTiamat 5y ago
  interesting, I think I describe my criteria identically to you, but I have different conclusions. The thing aboht markdown and org-mode is that it's fully readable without any extra requirements whatsoever, as opposed to e.g. jupyter, word, etc. I've read and edited my own org files in notepad on occasion, which works perfectly well (imagine doing that with a word document!), The same is true for markdown files- to such a degree that it is the standard for readme files, and those are definitely supposed to be readable by anyone. So to me that definitely makes it plain text- all the more as you will be perfectly fine not adhering to any of the rules within an org file, but then suddenly dropping a table with formulas in there and having it work immediately (again, image word here). So I would say it doesn't _need_ tools, but can _benefit_, as opposed to word/etc. You might say these are quantitatively less "plain text" in some way when compared with a literal .txt file, which is fair enough, but I think they're extremely similar when compared to a .docx file.
  - slightwinder 5y ago
    > interesting, I think I describe my criteria identically to you, but I have different conclusions. The thing aboht markdown and org-mode is that it's fully readable without any extra requirements whatsoever, as opposed to e.g. jupyter, word, etc. Well, yes, but no. It's more readable than the json or xml-files used by jupyter or word (which technically are still plain text). But they are less readable then any markup-free plain text. If you use slightly complex markup, like links or tables, they can become quite unreadable too. That's the nature of complexity. Additionally, you still must be aware of the syntax and it's rules, especially when you wanna write it, not just read them. That's why simple markups considered an in-between. The requirements are low, but they still are there. > So I would say it doesn't _need_ tools, but can _benefit_, as opposed to word/etc. True, but what are the benefits of using them without tools? Why not go full freestyle plain text? Use whatever text you want, make syntax up on the spot as you need it. That would be 100% plain text, as there is no cage that limits your expressioness.
unilynx 5y ago
Under that definition (printable plus whitespace controlling characters) a BASE64 encoded document is plain text. I'm not sure that makes it a very useful definition.
anthk 5y ago
>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. Antiword, Catdoc.

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).
  - jonnycomputer 5y ago
    sane

Aperocky 5y ago

I really don't think so but I did upvote you for your different opinion, I don't really think it should be downvoted like it did, arbitrary word definitions are just that - arbitrary, including opinions from Linux Info and of course me and you. What really decide them in the end is the public perception of the term in question.

jonnycomputer 5y ago
Are you sure? What about the blank line between these two paragraphs? Andwhydontiwritesentenceslikethis?

slightwinder 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. When people talk about plain text in that space, they usually mean the interaction level, not the technical level. Any cryptic rules which gives the text meaning in some parser is a rule the user need to first learn and internalize, which makes usage harder. Any tooling is an extra step you need to maintain for handling your texts. Of course, markdown and org-mode are relativ simple, but it stills needs tools, thus has extra requirements. It's not as plain and simple as starting notepad and call it a day.

OrderlyTiamat 5y ago
interesting, I think I describe my criteria identically to you, but I have different conclusions. The thing aboht markdown and org-mode is that it's fully readable without any extra requirements whatsoever, as opposed to e.g. jupyter, word, etc. I've read and edited my own org files in notepad on occasion, which works perfectly well (imagine doing that with a word document!), The same is true for markdown files- to such a degree that it is the standard for readme files, and those are definitely supposed to be readable by anyone. So to me that definitely makes it plain text- all the more as you will be perfectly fine not adhering to any of the rules within an org file, but then suddenly dropping a table with formulas in there and having it work immediately (again, image word here). So I would say it doesn't _need_ tools, but can _benefit_, as opposed to word/etc. You might say these are quantitatively less "plain text" in some way when compared with a literal .txt file, which is fair enough, but I think they're extremely similar when compared to a .docx file.
- slightwinder 5y ago
  > interesting, I think I describe my criteria identically to you, but I have different conclusions. The thing aboht markdown and org-mode is that it's fully readable without any extra requirements whatsoever, as opposed to e.g. jupyter, word, etc. Well, yes, but no. It's more readable than the json or xml-files used by jupyter or word (which technically are still plain text). But they are less readable then any markup-free plain text. If you use slightly complex markup, like links or tables, they can become quite unreadable too. That's the nature of complexity. Additionally, you still must be aware of the syntax and it's rules, especially when you wanna write it, not just read them. That's why simple markups considered an in-between. The requirements are low, but they still are there. > So I would say it doesn't _need_ tools, but can _benefit_, as opposed to word/etc. True, but what are the benefits of using them without tools? Why not go full freestyle plain text? Use whatever text you want, make syntax up on the spot as you need it. That would be 100% plain text, as there is no cage that limits your expressioness.

unilynx 5y ago

Under that definition (printable plus whitespace controlling characters) a BASE64 encoded document is plain text. I'm not sure that makes it a very useful definition.

anthk 5y ago

>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. Antiword, Catdoc.