Shorthand links: 68,960 / 256 = 269.375
ASCII only: 10,114 / 256 = 39.508
[][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1][][1]
[1]:ftp://^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Output is a sequence of elements that each look like:
<a href="ftp://%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E%5E" rel="nofollow noreferrer"></a>
After the fixed overhead for creating the URL reference, each 5-character link expands into 42+strlen(url)
characters output. Craft the URL to have the maximum number of characters that need escaping, and this grows to 47+3*strlen(url)
characters per link. A little experimentation showed that the optimal output involved 26 links, with 114 carets per link.
Update:
If you interpret the "256 character" limit to include Unicode characters, you can squeeze out more chaos. Replacing the carets with the Unicode bathtub character (, codepoint U+1F6C1) results in 47+18*strlen(url)
output characters per input character for a total of 54,574 68,960 (thanks to jimmy23013's even-shorter link notation).
Unicode input:
[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1],[1]
[1]:ftp://
Output is a series of:
<a href="ftp://%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD...per character...%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a>,
5
The Formatting Sandbox may come in handy for people to test before they post an answer.
– Engineer Toast – 2018-09-19T20:36:23.9037We might need a standard interpreter / viewer / checker system. People are getting different byte counts for the same code because some tags are / are not showing up. – Engineer Toast – 2018-09-19T21:06:51.553
3This is going to devolve into mathjax/latex actual busy beaver code – isaacg – 2018-09-20T02:14:29.837
@isaacg: I'll be impressed if you can come up with something that's worse than linear after trimming indentation. – Joshua – 2018-09-20T03:15:23.200
@Joshua See this answer: https://codegolf.stackexchange.com/a/172523/20080
– isaacg – 2018-09-20T03:16:36.7831Should Mathjax actually be allowed? It's not Markdown. – curiousdannii – 2018-09-20T07:00:14.380
6Should we count the rendered HTML or the source HTML? Language highlighting and MathJax are done client-side, not server-side. – user202729 – 2018-09-20T07:23:43.020
5Warning: Testing some large answers to this challenge may exhaust your RAM. – user202729 – 2018-09-20T10:19:50.817
@curiousdannii I did say "the markdown interpreter as implemented in this site." Some SE sites have MathJax support, but I think this isn't one of them, and I've noticed that none of the MathJax examples actually show the rendered output. – Mason Wheeler – 2018-09-20T13:08:53.273
3
@MasonWheeler This list says this site does support Mathjax. But it still doesn't make sense to me for mathjax to be considered markdown just because it can be combined with it. Edit: now I see below that you also don't think it counts. So cool :)
– curiousdannii – 2018-09-20T13:11:37.7201The "rendered or source" issue and whether MathJax is allowed really needs to be clarified. You can't just say "ok this is probably invalid but nice". – user202729 – 2018-09-21T10:40:15.573
1Voting to close as unclear. Unfortunately, StackExchange markup rendering is not a consistent interpreter, as it will change over time, and there will be no way to verify old answers once it does, because you cannot link to an old "interpreter". – mbomb007 – 2018-09-21T13:21:14.490
@Timtech It's weird that OP accepts the highest voted instead of the highest score answer, but "score" != "votes tally". Not a pop-con. – user202729 – 2018-09-22T02:08:36.373
1@MasonWheeler You should fix this some way soon or it will be closed. It has 4 close votes already. – user202729 – 2018-09-22T02:11:09.323
@user202729 My bad, looking back I don't know how I got the impression that this was a popularity contest. – Timtech – 2018-09-25T01:37:55.293