Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

textfiles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 50 posts

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#21

Post by krapp »

eviks wrote: post #18
krapp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It rather supports the site's core point, because that point is about plain text files, not HTML and CSS. Plain text is as readable as it is possible to be. Besides, this is exactly the kind of site HN constantly laments the loss of - unique, quirky, basic and rough around the edges.

> Plain text is as readable as it is possible to be. Which is nonsense, of course, just like this site illustrates. Trivial formatting and layout changes make it more readable. > Besides, this is exactly the kind of site HN constantly laments And this is exactly the beside-the-point response you sometimes encounter on HN. I'm not a representative of the collective HN, so why does it matter that some other people did…

text files don't have "formatting" or "layout." They're just streams of ASCII characters. HTML is not plaintext.

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#23

Post by eviks »

krapp wrote: post #21
eviks wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plain text is as readable as it is possible to be. Which is nonsense, of course, just like this site illustrates. Trivial formatting and layout changes make it more readable. > Besides, this is exactly the kind of site HN constantly laments And this is exactly the beside-the-point response you sometimes encounter on HN. I'm not a representative of the collective HN, so why does it matter that some other people did…

text files don't have "formatting" or "layout." They're just streams of ASCII characters. HTML is not plaintext.

They do, and it's even misapplied in this example - there are weird hard line breaks (an ASCII character) in the wrong places, breaking the supposed "accessibility" of the format.

But also, you continue to miss the point - this lacking/bad layout/formatting is precisely the reason not to use plain text

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#24

Post by yinyang_in »

vbezhenar wrote: post #19
kehvyn wrote: post #8

It's always interesting to me that these plaintext sites are flagged as "insecure" and "risky" by modern browsers. I don't have a good solution, but it reminds me of [1] [1]( https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2018/08/07/securing-sites... )

They are insecure, because your ISP can change website responses and text format doesn't protect from that. So basically browser can't guarantee that you're looking at original web server response.

With checksum & sign nothing can be guaranteed, right ?

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#26

Post by NuclearPM »

yinyang_in wrote: post #24
vbezhenar wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are insecure, because your ISP can change website responses and text format doesn't protect from that. So basically browser can't guarantee that you're looking at original web server response.

With checksum & sign nothing can be guaranteed, right ?

Why?

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#27

Post by childintime »

Turns out text files are a binary format also, with any number of encodings, ever more binary as UTF8 grows, requiring constant updates, hidden by the OS. Text files are just the name for a renderer built in into every OS.

So what exactly distinguishes them? The OS knows how to render them? It's just a linear list of characters? The reliance on a fixed font to allow some form of layout or positioning? Good basis for embedded DSL's, like Markdown?

Don't forget they are a binary format also. Oh, I just said that. I anticipate the day UTF8 will be a fond memory of a big mistake we made in our youth, that held us back for decades.

Don't forget that all of IT is a shit show sprinkled over with dollar paint, much like alchemy was. We don't yet know what the formation in Information is.

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#28

Post by andsoitis »

childintime wrote: post #27

Turns out text files are a binary format also, with any number of encodings, ever more binary as UTF8 grows, requiring constant updates, hidden by the OS. Text files are just the name for a renderer built in into every OS. So what exactly distinguishes them? The OS knows how to render them? It's just a linear list of characters? The reliance on a fixed font to allow some form of layout or positioning? Good basis for…

> the day UTF8 will be a fond memory of a big mistake we made

Alternative that would be better?

Re: Why Prefer Textfiles? (2010)

#29

Post by wodenokoto »

childintime wrote: post #27

Turns out text files are a binary format also, with any number of encodings, ever more binary as UTF8 grows, requiring constant updates, hidden by the OS. Text files are just the name for a renderer built in into every OS. So what exactly distinguishes them? The OS knows how to render them? It's just a linear list of characters? The reliance on a fixed font to allow some form of layout or positioning? Good basis for…

I actually agree, and kinda wished there was some sort of "binary" alternative to json that every text editor would open and let me edit as easily as json, because at the end of the day, it is no more binary than utf8 encodings with their number of bits, endians and confused line endings.
Post reply on HN