4 ms·

I like your extension of the term “readers” but I don’t think that’s the intended use for this matter. And if it were, would it be safe to assume that editors a

I like your extension of the term “readers” but I don’t think that’s the intended use for this matter. And if it were, would it be safe to assume that editors and other collaborators would consent to this standard? > But also, have you never read the plain text / source of some markdown/other markup language written by someone else? Readme.md in its raw form? That’s beside the point because the spec states "A semantic line break must not alter the final rendered output of the document.” And I think you’re misinterpreting what “plain text” refers to here. Not .txt files exclusively, but the markup languages mentioned as well that are...plain text. The final rendered output of these kind of documents are not themselves. The expectation is that the source of whatever flavor of plain text is not the final output. If this practice offends you, don’t use it. This is a specification suggesting a practice for you* to use. How have you been able to manage with hard-wrapped text elsewhere?

eviks 1y ago
> And if it were, would it be safe to assume that editors and other collaborators would consent to this standard? Easy no, only some of them in some instances. There is no uniformity at such a scale / variety of collaboration. > That’s beside the point because the spec states It's not, and I've addressed this in the very next semantic line! And you've also ignored the very point in your quoted line as well. Editing "Readme.md in its raw form" with the extra line breaks is still bad regardless of the final rendered output. > Not .txt files exclusively I don't need exclusivity, complementarity still works. And again, final output doesn't save you > If this practice offends you, don’t use it. If the criticism offends you, practice in the shadows and don't publish the raw misformatted specs/docs! > How have you been able to manage with hard-wrapped text elsewhere? Sometimes by batch-replacing those extra newlines in a text editor, sometiems by abandoning reading because the text reflow is too broken, sometimes just by plowing through while cursing the cavemen that force their habits onto the readers with different devices.
- tolerance 1y ago
  Your aversion appears to be psychological. It seems to me like you have trouble examining things by the sum of their parts and semantic line breaks agitate this. You’re free to the render “misformatted” text in the format that it’s intended to be viewed. And I take it that physical literature is a burden for you to bear. My condolences.
  - necovek 1y ago
    I imagine this type of formatting caused you to sneak in a typo or two like "free to the render" — if you had it as a free-flowing sentence, it'd be easier to catch. The point is that if these formatting snippets are useful for reading, we should extend this to all the readers too. If they are not, we should be mindful not to micro-optimize lest we confuse others and ourselves.
    - tolerance 1y ago
      Welp. You caught me. And I appreciate your point. I still might batch process all my notes to break at words up to 72 characters anyway! But I’ll be mindful to where safety goggles and proofread before grinding axes in public. And I’m leaving the typo above in situ so as not to mislead you that I’m less prone to error under normal circumstances. I’m a WIP.
      - necovek 1y ago
        Not at all my point to "catch" you, just to demonstrate that some of the claimed benefits are not really there. We all make typos regardless of the editing format: for some cases it might be better to go with these "semantic line breaks", for others not so much. While an interesting thought experiment, it should be obvious that claims are not objectively true. Perhaps a full-on scientific study is in order? :)
    - afc 1y ago
      I actually I'm somewhat torn on this. In my blog, I do this in my poems, such as: https://alejo.ch/39l https://alejo.ch/39l — I don't expect this to be controversial, makes sense for poems, right? However, I'm also experimenting with rendering my prose with the same type of breaks, like https://alejo.ch/3gb https://alejo.ch/3gb or https://alejo.ch/3g9 https://alejo.ch/3g9 My guess, reading this thread, is that most people would tell me that they find the breaks annoying and would rather read my prose without the breaks? Hmm. Would love to hear some feedback.
      - 1y ago

eviks 1y ago

> And if it were, would it be safe to assume that editors and other collaborators would consent to this standard? Easy no, only some of them in some instances. There is no uniformity at such a scale / variety of collaboration. > That’s beside the point because the spec states It's not, and I've addressed this in the very next semantic line! And you've also ignored the very point in your quoted line as well. Editing "Readme.md in its raw form" with the extra line breaks is still bad regardless of the final rendered output. > Not .txt files exclusively I don't need exclusivity, complementarity still works. And again, final output doesn't save you > If this practice offends you, don’t use it. If the criticism offends you, practice in the shadows and don't publish the raw misformatted specs/docs! > How have you been able to manage with hard-wrapped text elsewhere? Sometimes by batch-replacing those extra newlines in a text editor, sometiems by abandoning reading because the text reflow is too broken, sometimes just by plowing through while cursing the cavemen that force their habits onto the readers with different devices.

tolerance 1y ago
Your aversion appears to be psychological. It seems to me like you have trouble examining things by the sum of their parts and semantic line breaks agitate this. You’re free to the render “misformatted” text in the format that it’s intended to be viewed. And I take it that physical literature is a burden for you to bear. My condolences.
- necovek 1y ago
  I imagine this type of formatting caused you to sneak in a typo or two like "free to the render" — if you had it as a free-flowing sentence, it'd be easier to catch. The point is that if these formatting snippets are useful for reading, we should extend this to all the readers too. If they are not, we should be mindful not to micro-optimize lest we confuse others and ourselves.
  - tolerance 1y ago
    Welp. You caught me. And I appreciate your point. I still might batch process all my notes to break at words up to 72 characters anyway! But I’ll be mindful to where safety goggles and proofread before grinding axes in public. And I’m leaving the typo above in situ so as not to mislead you that I’m less prone to error under normal circumstances. I’m a WIP.
    - necovek 1y ago
      Not at all my point to "catch" you, just to demonstrate that some of the claimed benefits are not really there. We all make typos regardless of the editing format: for some cases it might be better to go with these "semantic line breaks", for others not so much. While an interesting thought experiment, it should be obvious that claims are not objectively true. Perhaps a full-on scientific study is in order? :)
  - afc 1y ago
    I actually I'm somewhat torn on this. In my blog, I do this in my poems, such as: https://alejo.ch/39l https://alejo.ch/39l — I don't expect this to be controversial, makes sense for poems, right? However, I'm also experimenting with rendering my prose with the same type of breaks, like https://alejo.ch/3gb https://alejo.ch/3gb or https://alejo.ch/3g9 https://alejo.ch/3g9 My guess, reading this thread, is that most people would tell me that they find the breaks annoying and would rather read my prose without the breaks? Hmm. Would love to hear some feedback.
    - 1y ago