2109: "Invisible Formatting"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 2109: "Invisible Formatting"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:55 am UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote:I have long wished that type styles operated similarly to capitalization. Not in terms of data storage under the hood—I'm not suggesting that bold letters should be an entirely different unicode sequence—but in terms of... if caps lock isn't enabled, and I'm not holding down shift, my word processor will never decide to make my text uppercase.

In other words, ⌘B should work like caps lock, except for bold characters instead of uppercase characters. When my bold cursor is enabled, anything I type becomes bold, and vise versa when bold is disabled. My computer should never make the switch for me—it only ever causes problems.

Unicode already has separate versions of the Roman alphabet in cursive and blackletter, as anyone who has spent enough time on Twitter has noticed. I've said before that it's only a matter of time before they decide to add hard-coded bold and italic versions as well. And then all hell will break loose as we scramble to decide whether to hold on to the old conventions or completely rethink the way we treat text formatting. To say nothing of the fact that we still haven't figured out quite what to do with fonts that offer more than two weights.

Jorpho wrote:You'd think the solution would be for Wikipedia to automatically redirect URLs with an open-paren but no close-paren to the equivalent page with the close-paren, because how frequently could article titles with unmatched parentheses possibly occur?

You're talking about the site that still hasn't figured out that people on mobile sometimes send links to people who aren't on mobile and the recipients are usually not fond of looking at a site hard-formatted for tiny screens. Or that people using 12-inch tablets don't need the site to be reformatted for four-inch phones.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
Uristqwerty
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:11 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2109: "Invisible Formatting"

Postby Uristqwerty » Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:17 pm UTC

I'm reminded of the old trick of using an empty tag to "escape" BBCode [b[b][/b]][/b]. Maybe these days you'd use a zero-width space, though: [b​][/b]. Each preview seems to strip one layer of empty tags, so the latter is definitely more convenient. And far more readable (though has the comic's invisible leftover from a previous edit problem).

Steve the Pocket wrote:Unicode already has separate versions of the Roman alphabet in cursive and blackletter, as anyone who has spent enough time on Twitter has noticed. I've said before that it's only a matter of time before they decide to add hard-coded bold and italic versions as well. And then all hell will break loose as we scramble to decide whether to hold on to the old conventions or completely rethink the way we treat text formatting. To say nothing of the fact that we still haven't figured out quite what to do with fonts that offer more than two weights.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_Alphanumeric_Symbols#Latin_letters

You have A-Za-z in: (bold?) * ((italic?) * (sans-serif?) + Script + "Fraktur") + Monospace + Double-struck, plus a smaller set of combinations for greek and for digits.

That formatting doubles up with normal, but fortunately this forum rejected my attempt to demonstrate it.

As for whether to switch: HTML and other mediums can let you set exactly *how* bold a character is (rounded to the nearest weight supported by the current font), and you'll still need a way to encode formatting for punctuation and non-latin characters. If a platform really wanted to embed formatting control characters as text, they'd probably be best off creating their own control codes within a Private Use Area, and decoding clientside.

User avatar
transatlantic
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2010 6:17 pm UTC

Re: 2109: "Invisible Formatting"

Postby transatlantic » Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:05 am UTC

WordPerfect Reveal Codes. I still miss it every damn day.

User avatar
CZeke
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:45 am UTC
Location: Waterloo, Canada
Contact:

Re: 2109: "Invisible Formatting"

Postby CZeke » Sun Mar 10, 2019 12:12 am UTC

Nice to see a couple of people mention WordPerfect -- I came to do that if no one had. For the uninitiated, WP's "Reveal Codes" feature let you see exactly where all the formatting was. Perfectionists and paranoiacs never had it so good.
FiveMinute.net: Because stuff is long and life is short

User avatar
grkvlt
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 6:42 am UTC
Location: Untied Kingdom
Contact:

Re: 2109: "Invisible Formatting"

Postby grkvlt » Tue Apr 02, 2019 5:03 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:
grkvlt wrote:deletia...
So, if you double click a word, then drag to the next word, then back to the original word, only that word, with no extra space will be selected!


My Firefox disagrees with you - the trailing space is always highlighted. Except if you highlight one word to the left, and then come back - in which case no words are highlighted and the text cursor rests to the right of the trailing space of the original word.

When it comes to a question of how text highlighting works in Firefox, I'm inclined to trust that my Firefox gets it "right" over the word of some random person online :P


Well, of course you shouldn't! Although I was describing the Chrome (version can't be bothered checking) for Windows 10 (build something or other) text highlighting behaviour, so there is that, fellow random online person... ;)
distributed systems hacker abstract visitor pattern {{citation-needed}}


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hetas and 114 guests