💾 Archived View for rawtext.club › ~sloum › geminilist › 005790.gmi captured on 2024-03-21 at 16:37:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2021-11-30)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Oliver Simmons oliversimmo at gmail.com
Mon Mar 1 09:44:26 GMT 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 03:47, Alex // nytpu <alex at nytpu.com> wrote:
So the sighted people with fancy syntax highlighting get to trivially
read it line-by-line, but the people writing accessible software have to
1) seek forward to find the end of the preformatted text block; 2) read
the alt text; then, if the user wants to display the preformatted block
3) jump backwards to the beginning of the preformatted text block and
read it; then 4) skip past the last line of the preformatted text block
so it isn't read again; then 5) continue parsing.
I assumed that the content type would be used to decide whether itwould be read.Anyways, my point was that using the closing ``` is not going to work,as Gemtext is meant to be read line-by-line.Whether it's the alt text or content type, having either of them last is flawed.
I think syntax highlighting deserves an easier implementation than
accessibility too, so I'm fine with this situation, I'm glad someone
else finally agrees with me on this.
I mean seriously, I like syntax highlighting as much as anyone but
advanced syntax highlighting has to be context-sensitive and possibly
requires looking back in the code block anyways, so might as well put it
at the end, if you have it at all. But let's just look at the concept
at all for a second: if you really have such a massive block of code
that you need syntax highlighting, just put it in its own file and let
either the browser color it via MIME type or the user can just open it
in their editor. If your short snippet of code can't be understood
without syntax highlighting then it's probably a problem with your code
rather than the presentation...
Agreed.
- Oliver Simmons