TextOnly

Ew.  I don't enable coloured text even when I do enable graphics.  NetHack and its ilk are perfectly playable in monochrome.  And, since I'm clearly NitPicking? to a degree rarely seen outside of the TrinityBenches? of a MathsLecture?; all of the above examples are TextOnly, your browser simply has an option to rejig the text and act on it, if you let it.  --Vitenka

Well, control characters and other bytes outside of the 32-127 range (even 32-255) don't fit the conventional definition of "text", and those images likely contain bytes from 0-31...?  --AlexChurchill, joining in the NitPicking?

Ah, but the images aren't there - only Image:26 is there.  If your browser happens to turn that into a picture then a) MoonShadow has fixed that image and b) It's your browser doing something clever.  ;)  --Vitenka

Not true. MoonShadow's perl server is taking the text "Image:26" and converting it into a string of non-text that happens to start with the characters "GIF89a" followed by some non-text bytes. The browser converts that non-text into a more visually-comprehensible-to-humans form of non-text - i.e. the image.  --AlexChurchill

Also not true.  MoonShadow's server turns "Image:26" into

<a HREF="http://www.toothycat.net/wiki/img.pl?chg=26">

<img SRC="http://www.toothycat.net/wiki/img.pl?get=26" BORDER="0" ALT="Image: 26"></a> and the web-browser uses the information in the img tag to get the image itself. -- Senji

D'oh, d'oh. You are of course correct.  I'd convinced myself that the HTML page was somehow actually inlining the images. So Vitenka's original comment that the above are text-only is, I suppose, technically accurate. In some nitpicky and irrelevant sense. ;);) Which, naturally, I approve of.  --AlexChurchill

Alternating with what? (AlternateAlternativeRant) --B

I thought that was filming HappySlapping? lolz, but maybe I'm buying into DailyMail-esque propaganda. --PT