| ▲ | dwb 5 hours ago |
| Plain text is great as far as it goes, but when it comes to structure you start from zero for every file. There’s always someone getting wistful about ad-hoc combinations of venerable Unix tools to process “plain text”, and that’s fine when you’re in an ad-hoc situation, but it’s no substitute for a well-specified format. |
|
| ▲ | adityaathalye 5 hours ago | parent [-] |
| XML, JSON, YAML, RDF, EDN, LaTeX, OrgMode, Markdown... Plenty of plaintext, but structured information formats that are "yes, and". Yes, I can process them as lines of plain text, and I can do structured data transformations on them too, and there are clients (or readers) that know how to render them in WYSIWYG style. |
| |
| ▲ | dwb 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If that’s our definition of “plain text”, sure. I would still rather our tools were more advanced, such that printable and non-printable formats were on a more equal footing, though. I always process structured formats through something that understands the structure, if I can, so I feel that the only benefit I regularly get out of formats being printable is that I have to use tools that only cope with printable formats. The argument starts getting a bit circular for me. | |
| ▲ | layer8 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | XML arguably isn’t plain text, but a binary format: If you add/change the encoding declaration on the first line, the remaining bytes will be interpreted differently. Unless you process it as a function of its declared (or auto-detected, see below) encoding, you have to treat it as a binary file. In the absence of an encoding declaration, the encoding is in some cases detected automatically based on the first four bytes: https://www.w3.org/TR/xml/#sec-guessing-no-ext-info
Again, that means that XML is a binary format. | | |
|
