If we call any wire protocol "text", we're just restating information theory. The reason why text is text and not binary lies in the rules of presentation. Tex

If we call any wire protocol "text", we're just restating information theory. The reason why text is text and not binary lies in the rules of presentation. Text as 1D occurs in the trivial case of direct mapping of bytes to symbols, as in a hexeditor; but one of the first things we look for in analysis of byte data is some kind of notion of word or line - beginnings and endings of a group of data. Once you add these breaks as a rendering effect, text becomes practical for purpose, because it now automatically describes some hierarchy. The functional difference between word and line is just in how it makes use of vertical and horizontal dimensions to present the information. Both are spatial and therefore suggest "pictorial" usages. So in practice everything we call "text" is at least 1.5-dimensional; the viewing model and editing functions are aware of spatial elements as well as symbolic ones. Formatting rules around tabs, column limits and the like are present as global properties of text documents. It's not something specific to "pictorial" languages, because these formatting rules and discussions about them reoccur in every collaborative project, regardless of language. I spent some time examining this in detail and noticed that written language encodes many forms of "textual break" through punctuation, paragraphs, and pagination. We don't feel a need to group every written sentence in brackets because we have the punctuation marks to describe the hierarchy efficiently, with spacing and line breaks acting as larger grouping signifiers with more visual impact. And if we instruct a computer to read a text document in that way, by describing "breaking tokens" with different rankings, it can immediately begin to navigate the document in a hierarchical manner by observing higher vs lower rankings within the tokens. The linear encoding is ultimately just that - an encoding. The actual structure of text documents is always more complex and draws on hierarchical elements, even if it doesn't encode them with robust or flexible primitives. A useful contrasting model is that of the spreadsheet. Spreadsheet cells are designed towards fungible congruency in that they can contain varying types and sizes of data, but are navigable within the document as interchangable elements. The reason why so many information workers(myself included) reach for the spreadsheet for every task has to do with this fungibility: rather than describing spatial formatting through a linear encoding, the assumed spatiality of cells allows for arbitrary groupings of information, which is useful as an iterative process. I might have a few key words for an idea or pieces of data I've collected, but I don't necessarily want to encode them in a sentence or list specifically - I just want them close to each other. Therefore, even if all I'm doing is writing textual notes, I still want to have the cell abstraction so that I can defer encoding a linear structure at the top level and move around my thoughts in more arbitrary ways. (Would I write code in a spreadsheet editor? Absolutely, given a language designed for it.)