[andrewaylett]

I would say that a "language" is a necessary component of a "programming language".

An empty file was an IOCCC winner: https://www.ioccc.org/1994/smr/ but you need to interpret that empty file as C source in order to reasonably claim to have programmed the computer.

My reasoning comes more from the other direction: someone who writes HTML is programming therefore HTML is a programming language.

[Dylan16807]

Can you give a clearer definition of when a person "is programming"?

Your earlier definition talked about giving the computer a capability, but that capability just seemed to be displaying a specific file?

Where is the cutoff on the line from HTML to markdown to ASCII? (noting that ASCII uses control codes that trigger special behavior)

[andrewaylett]

Honestly, I don't think there's a bright line. What's the difference between "code" and "data"? It's as much about intent as anything. If my focus is on my content then I'm probably not programming. But if my focus is on getting the computer to do something then I probably am, even if the end result is identical.

I've created any number of empty files in my lifetime, and I wouldn't say that more than a couple of them were programming, but I don't think it's controversial to claim that the IOCCC submission I linked up-thread definitely was programming, and (maybe slightly more controversial) that my deliberate replication of the program when I first heard about it $mumble years ago was also programming?

In your specific example, if someone constructed an ASCII file which made use of the control codes to do something interesting (or even something boring!) then wouldn't that be programming? While typing ASCII into this text field isn't programming because the value of the information is in the human interpretation of the content rather than the machine having interpreted the content as code.