Couldn't help riffing off on a tangent from the title (since the article is about diagramming tools)...
Dylan Beattie has a thought-provoking presentation for anyone who believes that "plain text" is a simple / solid substrate for computing: "There's no such thing as plain text"https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/theres-no-such-thing-as... (you'll find many videos from different conferences)
Haven't watched the videos yet, but from the slides, it looks like part of the issue he was talking about was encodings (there's a slide illustrating UTF-16LE ve UTF-16BE, for example). Thankfully, with UTF-8 becoming the default everywhere (so that you need a really good reason not to use it for any given document), we're back at "yes, there is such a thing as plain text" again. It has a much larger set of valid characters, but if you receive a text file without knowing its encoding, you can just assume it's UTF-8 and have a 99.7% chance of being right.
The point is, a lot of work went into making that happen. I.e., plain text as it is today is not some inherent property of computing. It is a binary protocol and displaying text through fonts is also not a trivial matter.
So my question is: what are we leaving on the table by over focusing on text? What about graphs and visual elements?
I was not very descriptive, but I was referring to the next layer up of building blocks. Instead of text, we could also express things in hybrid ways with text but also visual nodes that can carry more dense information. The usual response is that those things don't work with text-based tools, but that's my point. Text based tools needed invention and decades of refinement, and they're still not all that great.
I should have said "a text file with no byte-order mark". I would hope that Excel's CSV export, if it's writing UTF-16, is writing a byte-order mark first (though I don't have any Excel-exported CSVs lying around right now to check). The byte-order mark is necessary for UTF-16 since it has big-endian and little-endian variants, but unnecessary (and actually harmful in a few situations) for UTF-8. So naturally, if you assume something is UTF-8 but the first few bytes you encounter are FF FE or FE FF (both of which are illegal in UTF-8) then instead of throwing an error saying "Hey, that's illegal UTF-8, buddy!" you should just reparse in UTF-16 (and you now know the correct byte order to use). In fact, you should read four bytes just to make sure you're not seeing FF FE 00 00, because that would indicate a UTF-32LE document. (Which indicates an ambiguity in UTF-16, that UTF-8 doesn't have. A UTF-16 document that begins with a null byte is likely to be misinterpreted as UTF-32LE).
Before I go off on too much of a rabbit trail, I have two points I want to make:
1. Since UTF-8 should be the default assumption for any sensible software, a byte-order mark is not needed for UTF-8, but any non-UTF-8 encoding should use a byte-order mark. (And in fact needs a BOM, because both UTF-16 and UTF-32 have LE and BE variants).
2. Excel needs to fix its stupid CSV import/export defaults.
> Thankfully, with UTF-8 becoming the default everywhere (so that you need a really good reason not to use it for any given document), we're back at "yes, there is such a thing as plain text" again.
Whenever I hear this, I hear "all text files should be 50% larger for no reason".
UTF-8 is pretty similar to the old code page system.
Hm? UTF-8 encodes all of ASCII with one byte per character, and is pretty efficient for everything else. I think the only advantage UTF-16 has over UTF-8 is that some ranges (such as Han characters I believe?) are often 3 bytes of UTF-8 while they're 2 bytes of UTF-16. Is that your use case? Seems weird to describe that as "all text files" though?
UTF-8 encodes European glyphs in two bytes and oriental glyphs in three bytes. This is due to the assumption that you're not going to be using oriental glyphs. If you are going to use them, UTF-8 is a very poor choice.
UTF-8 does not encode "European glyphs" in two bytes, no. Most European languages use variations of the latin alphabet, meaning most glyphs in European languages use the 1-byte ASCII subset of UTF-8. The occasional non-ASCII glyph becomes two bytes, that's correct, but that's a much smaller bloat than what you imply.
Anyway, what are you comparing it to, what is your preferred alternative? Do you prefer using code pages so that the bytes in a file have no meaning unless you also supply code page information and you can't mix languages in a text file? Or do you prefer using UTF-16, where all of ASCII is 2 bytes per character but you get a marginal benefit for Han texts?
A file isn't meaningful unless you know how to interpret it; that will always be true. Assuming that all files must be in a preexisting format defeats the purpose of having file formats.
> Most European languages use variations of the latin alphabet
If you want to interpret "variations of Latin" really, really loosely, that's true.
Cyrillic and Greek characters get two bytes, even when they are by definition identical to ASCII characters. This bloat is actually worse than the bloat you get by using UTF-8 for Japanese; Cyrillic and Greek will easily fit into one byte.
As someone who has been using Cyrillic writing all my life, I've never noticed this bloat you're speaking of, honestly...
Maybe if you're one of those AI behemots who works with exabytes of training data, it would make some sense to compress it down by less than 50% (since we're using lots of Latin terms and acronyms and punctuation marks which all fit in one byte in UTF-8).
On the web and in other kinds of daily text processing, one poorly compressed image or one JavaScript-heavy webshite obliterates all "savings" you would have had in that week by encoding text in something more efficient.
It's the same with databases. I've never seen anyone pick anything other than UTF-8 in the last 10 years at least, even though 99% of what we store there is in Cyrillic. I sometimes run into old databases, which are usually Oracle, that were set up in the 90s and never really upgraded. The data is in some weird encoding that you haven't heard of for decades, and it's always a pain to integrate with them.
I remember the days of codepages. Seeing broken text was the norm. Technically advanced users would quickly learn to guess the correct text encoding by the shapes of glyphs we would see when opening a file. Do not want.
> A file isn't meaningful unless you know how to interpret it; that will always be true.
There are multiple levels of meaning, though; character encoding is just one part of it. For example, a text file might be plain text, or HTML, or JSON, or a C source code, etc; a binary file might be DER, or IFF, or ZIP, etc; and then there will be e.g. what kind of data a JSON or DER or IFF contains and how that level of the data is interpreted, etc.
> Cyrillic and Greek characters get two bytes, even when they are by definition identical to ASCII characters.
Whether or not they are identical to ASCII characters depends on the character set and on other things, such as what they are being used for; the definition of "identical" is not so simple as you make it seem. Unicode defines them as not identical, which is appropriate for some uses but is wrong for other uses. (Unicode also defines some characters as identical even though in some uses it would be more appropriate to treat them as not identical, too. So, Unicode is both ways bad.)
> This bloat is actually worse than the bloat you get by using UTF-8 for Japanese; Cyrillic and Greek will easily fit into one byte.
I agree with that (although I think UTF-8 should not be used for Japanese either), but it isn't because of which characters are considered "identical" or not. There are problems with Unicode in general regardless of which encoding you use.
> ... (although I think UTF-8 should not be used for Japanese either) ...
The people putting up websites in Japanese disagree with you, it would seem. According to Wikipedia (in the Shift JIS article), as of March 2026 99% of websites in the .jp domain were in UTF-8, with only 1% being in Shift JIS.
Japan used to have two different encodings in common use, Shift JIS (usually used on Windows) and EUC-JP (more common on Unix servers). This resulted in characters being misinterpreted often enough that they coined the word mojibake to describe the phenomenon of text coming out completely garbled. These days, it seems Japanese website makers are more than happy to accept a slight inefficiency in encoding size, because what they gain from that is never having to see mojibake again.
If they are misinterpreted, it is because the character encoding is not declared properly.
I still sometimes see mojibake in Japanese web pages, but sometimes it works; if it works, it is because the character encoding is declared properly.
In my opinion, EUC-JP is a generally better encoding of JIS (especially in e.g. C source code, which should not use Shift-JIS but EUC-JP is OK), but Shift-JIS does have some benefits in some circumstances (such as making a character grid with one byte per character cell; if using Shift-JIS for a Pascal source code then you should use (* *) instead of { } for comments please).
> If they are misinterpreted, it is because the character encoding is not declared properly.
OR because the software is buggy, or making assumptions about encoding and not checking them (which also counts as "buggy", of course). You can declare the encoding all you like, it won't protect you against the stupid decisions that other people make in writing their software. (See Excel, for example).
Yes, if you declare your encoding properly, things should work. Most of the time. And if you're using any encoding that is not the worldwide default (which these days is UTF-8), then you definitely should declare the encoding. But you'll still occasionally hit badly-written software that doesn't even think about other encodings and doesn't handle them properly. The only defense against that situation, where you declare your encoding properly and it still doesn't work, is to just use the encoding that the software was written to expect, which is almost certainly the worldwide default.
UTF-8 does not require a byte order mark. The byte order mark is a technical necessity born from UTF-16 and a desire to store UTF-16 in a machine's native endianness.
The byte order mark has has no relation to code pages.
I don't think you know what you're talking about and I do not think further engagement with you is fruitful. Bye.
EDIT: okay since you edited your comment to add the part about Greek and cryllic after I responded, I'll respond to that too. Notice how I did not say "all European languages". Norwegian, Swedish, French, Danish, Spanish, German, English, Polish, Italian, and many other European languages have writing systems where typical texts are "mostly ASCII with a few special symbols and diacritics here and there". Yes, Greek and cryllic are exceptions. That does not invalidate my point.
Yikes. That would lose the ability to know the meaning of the current bytes, or misinterpret them badly, if you happen to get one critical byte dropped or mangled in transmission. At least UTF-8 is self-syncing: if you end up starting to read in the middle of a non-rewindable stream whose beginning has already passed, you can identify the start of the next valid codepoint sequence unambiguously, and then end up being able to sync up with the stream, and you're guaranteed not to have to read more than 4 bytes (6 bytes when UTF-8 was originally designed) in order to find a sync point.
But if you have to rely on a byte that may have already gone past? No way to pick up in the middle of a stream and know what went before.
No, we haven't. You can start at any byte in a UTF-8 document and resume reading coherent text. If you start reading from the middle of a multi code point sequence, then the first couple of glyphs may be wrong, for example you may see a lone skin tone modifier rendered as a beige blob where the author intended a smiley face with that skin tone. But these multi code point sequences are short, and the garbled text is bounded to the rest of the multi code point sequence. The entire rest of the document will be perfectly readable.
Compare this to missing a code page indicator. It will garble the whole section until the next code page indicator, often the whole rest of the document. The fact that you're even comparing these two situations as if they're the same is frankly ridiculous.
Unicode had support for language tag codepoints. They still exist but have long been deprecated. They were intended to deal with glyph variants, especially with regards to Han unification.
UTF-8 may still be a good choice for Japanese text, though.
For one thing, pure text is often not the only thing in the file. Markup is often present, and most markup syntaxes (such as HTML or XML) use characters from the ASCII range for the markup, so those characters are one byte (but would be two bytes in UTF-16). Back when the UTF-8 Everywhere manifesto (https://utf8everywhere.org/) was being written, they took the Japanese-language Wikipedia article on Japan, and compared the size of its HTML source between UTF-8 and UTF-16. (Scroll down to section 6 to see the results I'm about to cite). UTF-8 was 767 KB, UTF-16 was 1186 KB, a bit more than 50% larger than UTF-8. The space savings from the HTML markup outweighed the extra bytes from having a less-efficient encoding of Japanese text. Then they did a copy-and-paste of just the Japanese text into a text file, to give UTF-16 the biggest win. There, the UTF-8 text was 222 KB while the UTF-16 encoding got it down to 176 KB, a 21% win for UTF-16 — but not the 50% win you would have expected from a naive comparison, because Japanese text still uses many characters from the ASCII set (space, punctuation...) and so there are still some single-byte UTF-8 characters in there. And once the files were compressed, both UTF-8 and UTF-16 were nearly the same size (83 KB vs 76 KB) which means there's little efficiency gain anyway if your content is being served over a gzip'ed connection.
So in theory, UTF-8 could be up to 50% larger than UTF-16 for Japanese, Chinese, or Korean text (or any of the other languages that fit into the higher part of the basic multilingual place). But in practice, even giving the UTF-16 text every possible advantage, they only saw a 20% improvement over UTF-8.
Which is not nearly enough to justify all the extra cost of suddenly not knowing what encoding your text file is in any more, not when we've finally reached the point of being able to open a text file and just know the encoding.
P.S. I didn't even mention the Shift JIS encoding, and there's a reason I didn't. I've never had to use it "for real", but I've read about it. No. No thank you. No. Shudder. I'm not knocking the cleverness of it, it was entirely necessary back when all you had was 8 bits to work with. But let me put it this way: it's not a coincidence that Japan invented a word (mojibake) to represent what happens when you see text interpreted in the wrong encoding. There were multiple variations of Shift JIS (and there was also EUC-JP just to throw extra confusion into the works), so Japanese people saw garbled text all the time as it moved from one computer running Windows, to an email server likely running Unix, to another computer running Windows... it was a big mess. It's also not a coincidence that (according to Wikipedia), 99.1% of Japanese websites (defined as "in the .jp domain") are encoded in UTF-8, while Shift JIS is used by only 1% (probably about 0.95% rounded up) of .jp websites.
So in practice, nearly everyone in Japan would rather have slightly less efficient encoding of text, but know for a fact that their text will be read correctly on the other end.
I can't tell what the argument is just from the slideshow. The main point appears to be that code pages, UTF-16, etc are all "plain text" but not really.
If that really was the argument, then it is, in 2026, obsolete; utf-8 is everywhere.
He has a YouTube channel, there's a talk on there.
He also discusses code pages etc.
I don't think the thesis is wrong. Eg when I think plain text I think ASCII, so we're already disagreeing about what 'plain text' is. His point isn't that we don't have a standard, it's that we've had multiple standards over what we think is the most basic of formats, with lots of hidden complications.
Tell that to programmers writing code to extract data from PCL print streams by stripping escape sequences and processing the result as "plain text" (in multiple incompatible extended ASCII encodings specified by the stripped escape sequences), or anyone exporting data from Excel in "CSV (Comma delimited) (*.csv)" format.
UTF-8 is everywhere. Until it's not. And it's impossible to distinguish UTF-8 from any other extended ASCII encoding given a sample containing only ASCII characters, so there's still no reliable way to process data that can only be described as "plain text".
I read that article long time ago, and for me it's a hard disagree. A system as complex and quirky as Unicode can never be considered "plain", and even today it is common for many apps that something Unicode-related breaks. ASCII is still the only text system that will really work well everywhere, which I consider a must for calling something plain text.
And yes, ASCII means mostly limiting things to English but for many environments that's almost expected. I would even defend this not being a native English speaker myself.
With the advent of computing, the term plaintext expanded beyond human-readable documents to mean any data, including binary files, in a form that can be viewed or used without requiring a key or other decryption device. Information—a message, document, file, etc.—if to be communicated or stored in an unencrypted form is referred to as plaintext.
Unencrypted information that may be input to an encryption operation. Note: Plain text is not a synonym for clear text. See clear text.
Intelligible data that has meaning and can be understood without the application of decryption.
Unfortunately no, Unicode is not simply a mapping of bytes to characters. It is a mapping of numbers to code points, and in some cases you can even get the same characters with multiple code point sequences (not a very good mapping!). Then you need to convert numbers to bytes, so aside from Unicode you also need an encoding. And there are multiple choices. So what would be "plain text" then? UTF-16? UTF-8? If so, with or without BOM? It can't be all of them. For something to really be "plain text" it has to be the same thing to everyone...
> Unfortunately no, Unicode is not simply a mapping of bytes to characters. It is a mapping of numbers to code points, and in some cases you can even get the same characters with multiple code point sequences (not a very good mapping!).
It is worse than that; you can also get different characters with the same code points, and also same code points and characters that should be different according to some uses, and also different code points and characters that should be same according to some uses, etc.
I agree with you that Unicode is too complicated and messy, although it also shows that whether or not something is considered "plain" is itself too difficult.
Unicode has caused many problems (although it was common for m17n and i18n to be not working well before Unicode either). One problem is making some programs no longer 8-bit clean.
Unicode might be considered in two ways: (1) Unicode is an approximation of multiple other character sets, (2) All character sets are an encoding of a subset of Unicode. At best, if Unicode is used at all, it should be used as (1) (as a last resort), but it is too common for Unicode to be used as (2) (as a first resort), which is not good in my opinion.
(I mostly avoid Unicode in my software, although it is also often the case (and, in many (but not all) programs, should be the case) that it only cares about ASCII but does not prevent you from using any other character encodings that are compatible with ASCII.)
> ASCII is still the only text system that will really work well everywhere, which I consider a must for calling something plain text.
Yes, it does work well (almost) everywhere.
Supersets of ASCII are also common, including UTF-8, and PC character set, ISO 2022 (if ASCII is the initially selected G0 set, which it is in the ASN.1 Graphic string and General string types, as well in most terminal emulators), EUC-JP, etc. In these cases, ASCII will also usually work well.
However, as another comment mentions, and I agree with them, that if you mean "ASCII" then it is what you should say, rather than "plain text" which does not tell you what the character encoding is. That other comment says:
> Plain text is text intended to be interpreted as bytes that map simply to characters.
However, it is not always so clear and simple what "characters" is, depending on the character sets and what language you are writing. And then, there are also control characters, to be considered, so it is again not quite so "plain".
> And yes, ASCII means mostly limiting things to English but for many environments that's almost expected. I would even defend this not being a native English speaker myself.
In my opinion, it depends on the context and usage. One character set (regardless of which one it is) cannot be suitable for all purposes. However, for many purposes, ASCII is suitable (including C source code; you might put l10n in a separate file).
You should have proper m17n (in the contexts where it is appropriate, which is not necessarily all files), but Unicode is not a good way to do it.
All character setes do not encode subsets of Unicode.
Two well-known counterexamples that come immediately to mind:
1. Mac OS Roman includes a non-Unicode Apple logo.
2. The Atari ST character set includes two non-Unicode characters that combine to create an Atari logo, and 4 non-Unicode characters that combine to create a picture of J.R. "Bob" Dobbs [1].
Yes, I know that (I was aware of both of these cases, as well as others). In those cases, there are characters that do not correspond to any Unicode characters.
Nevertheless, what I was saying is that many programs seem to be designed as though other character sets do encode subsets of Unicode, but actually they are different character sets and are not Unicode.
However, what I meant was, in addition to things like the examples that you have, other less obvious cases. Even if characters do correspond to Unicode (and sometimes there is more than one way to do it, which is the case for several PC characters), they are not necessarily supposed to work in the same way.
At best, Unicode could be used as an approximation if the other character sets cannot be used, although sometimes there are other ways to do it.
Dylan Beattie has a thought-provoking presentation for anyone who believes that "plain text" is a simple / solid substrate for computing: "There's no such thing as plain text" https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/theres-no-such-thing-as... (you'll find many videos from different conferences)