If I copy text that has some formatting, like italic or bold text, and paste it into a text box on a website or application that accepts formatted text, particular formatting features like emboldened or italic text, and even sometimes particular features like text color and background color, are preserved.
How is this data stored in the system clipboard? And how does this data not somehow interfere with pasting into applications which only support plain text, like my terminal emulator?
>>54555771
Holy run on sentence, batman.
Applications can store the clipboard data in multiple formats (e.g. proprietary microsoft rtf crap, text/html, utf-8 text and 8-bit text). Then other applications can request the data in order of preference.
>>54555771
POO
O
O
>>54555800
That first sentence is admittedly pretty long, but I figure I used descriptive clauses properly.
>>54555890
What the fuck
>>54555912
The fact that you used so many is what makes it nigh incomprehensible.
>>54555997
I used exactly two, my man.
>>54556040
Don't you have a street to shit in rajesh?
>>54556060
Shit bro, almost forgot.
>>54556060
>>54556076
Sick counterargument, by the way. Solid discourse.
>>54556040
>defending your trainwreck of a sentence
>>54556096
Tell me how it's technically wrong, though.
>>54556121
Because you can cut out half of it and lose no value:
>If I copy text that has some formatting and paste it into a text box on a website or application, particular formatting features like emboldened or italic text are preserved.
In trying to parse your sentence, I have to simultaneously keep track of the text, the formatting of the text, the website/application, and the formatting again as you enumerate details for all of them at once. It takes several times reading through it in order to make accurate sense of things.
>>54556173
Right, but is that a technical error?
>>54556173
If that sentence bothers you I hope for your own sanity that you don't ever pick up a book on philosophy.
>>54556187
>pic related
>>54556196
I make it a habit to only read books that are worth reading.
>>54556349
I asked you how it was technically wrong. You failed to properly answer the question (hint: what you wrote is not a technical error), so I asked again.
>>54556386
I told you your sentence was difficult to understand. Your response is to question where the technical error lies. Should a disliked author point to the fact that their writing is error-free when presented with disagreeable readers?
>>54556422
You're the only one moving the goalposts here, my friend. The post you replied to in the first place was asking if the sentence was technically wrong. From the very start I was defending the sentence's technical correctness. Why are you all of the sudden making it about your personal struggle with reading comprehension?
>>54556448
The post I replied to in the first place was your original post. You are continuing to move goalposts now by attacking my reading comprehension when I've been telling you this whole time you tried to fit too much shit into a single sentence. In the business we don't blame the user when they say a UI is unintelligible.
>>54556528
I understand that my sentence is not quite appropriate for this Taiwanese motion cartoon image forum, but I'm not trying to defend that. You claimed in your first post that my sentence had a technical error (that it was a run-on) and you still have yet to point out what grammatical rule my sentence breaks.
>>54556584
The run-on is the rule, you haughty autist.
hey what ever happened to the stupid questions thread? did that stop or something?
>>54556674
I've already answered this complaint, dude.
>That first sentence is admittedly pretty long, but I figure I used descriptive clauses properly.
