XPost: comp.sys.mac.system   
   From: YourName@YourISP.com   
      
   On 2026-02-13 20:13:22 +0000, Carlos E. R. said:   
   > On 2026-02-13 19:12, Maria Sophia wrote:   
   >> Carlos E. R. wrote:   
   >>>> I do a lot of research as I generally invest at least an hour or   
   >>>> two into many of my Usenet opening posts, where I currently   
   >>>> employ a thousand- line Windows Notepad++ macro that beautifully   
   >>>> cleans up non-ASCII garbage copied from both Firefox and   
   >>>> Chromium web output, where, only with Chromium pastes into   
   >>>> Notepad++ was the selection mechanism (i.e., Ctrl+A) inoperative.   
   >>>   
   >>> How do you propose we test this in Linux? There is no notepad++.   
   >>   
   >> Hi Carlos,   
   >>   
   >> Thanks for asking, where I'll propose a test for Linux later, but first I   
   >> need you to understand that the problem exists across all platforms   
   >> (AFAIK).   
   >>   
   >> Reacting to a perceived incredularity on your part, I simply ask (a bit   
   >> snarkily in jest so as to bring the conversation back to where it belongs),   
   >> are we really prepared to claim that Linux users, who are those same people   
   >> who have approximately seventeen text editors installed before breakfast,   
   >> have never once copied any text from Firefox or Chromium and pasted it into   
   >> vi, vim, GVim, Kate, gedit, or any of the other editors that have existed   
   >> since the Pleistocene?   
   >   
   > I copy paste rich text from Firefox into editors without problems. I do   
   > not use Chrome, but I have it installed.   
      
   I have noticed a couple of small differences when using MacOS 10.13 /   
   High Sierra versions of old Safari and current Firefox:   
      
   1.  Copying a link from a webpage.   
       In Safari and then pasting it into any text-based app (TextEdit,   
       Usenet messages, etc.), all you get is the on-page text of the   
       link, not the actual http web link itself. Using Firefox pastes   
       the http web link.   
      
   2.  When copying text from a webpage with an embedded YouTube video.   
       In Safari, pasting the text into a text-based app give the HTML   
       code for the video with the video's web address. Using Firefox   
       just results in some error text about JavaScript where the video   
       should be.   
      
   I only ever use Chrome for the very very occasional websites that won't   
   work in Safari or Firefox - usually awful Government-based ones where   
   they still think everybody uses Windoze - so never bothered to see what   
   that does in these two cases.   
      
      
      
   >> Because the absence of native Notepad++ on Linux doesn't magically prevent   
   >> clipboard testing. The clipboard exists. Chromium exists. Firefox exists.   
   >> Editors exist.   
   >> The only missing ingredient would be the willingness to actually try it.   
   >>   
   >> If the question is whether the Chromium HTML-Fragment/StartHTML clipboard   
   >> quirk shows up on Linux, the answer depends entirely on whether the editor   
   >> in question reacts to the presence of HTML on the clipboard.   
   >> Some may. Some may not. That's the whole point of the PSA!   
   >>   
   >> To warn others that the behavior comes from the browser's clipboard   
   >> serialization, not from Windows, Notepad++, or any single platform.   
   >>   
   >> So yes, of course this can be tested on Linux. It always could.   
   >> The prerequisite is acknowledging that "Notepad++ doesn't run on Linux" is   
   >> not the airtight argument all the follow on posters seem to believe.   
   >   
   > I pasted an entire web page from Chrome into Kate and LO Write, with no   
   > perceived problems.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)