[BUG] Fenced code blocks wrap on desktop but not on remote control — same message readable on one surface, not the other

(Rewritten shortly after filing: this was originally posted as a feature request for a copyable prose block. That framing was wrong — the two surfaces already disagree with each other, so this is a rendering inconsistency, not a missing feature.)

What happens

The same fenced code block renders differently depending on which surface is reading the conversation:

• Desktop app — a long line inside a plain fence wraps, and the whole block is readable without horizontal scrolling.
• Remote control — the same block does not wrap. The line runs off the side and needs sideways scrolling to read to the end.

Observed directly, with both surfaces open on the same conversation at the same time: a single ~300-character sentence inside a plain fence (no language tag), wrapped on the desktop and overflowed on the phone.

Why it's a bug rather than a preference

Neither behaviour is unreasonable on its own — wrapping favours readability, horizontal scrolling favours keeping code lines intact. The problem is that they disagree, so the same message is readable on one surface and not on the other, and the author has no way to know which one their reader is on.

That matters most in the case where remote control is the only surface available. A block written to be read — and checked on the desktop, where it looked fine — arrives unreadable, with no indication anything is different.

Expected

Consistent wrapping behaviour for fenced blocks across desktop and remote control. Which of the two behaviours is chosen matters much less than the two surfaces agreeing.

Note on the underlying need

The reason long prose ends up inside a fence at all is that fenced blocks are the only container with a one-click copy control. Selecting prose by hand is workable on a desktop and genuinely difficult on a phone — press-and-hold, drag two handles to precise points in a scrolling view, often across the screen boundary, then hunt for a copy menu that may itself be off-screen.

So a copyable block that renders as wrapped prose would remove the reason to misuse code fences this way. That's secondary to the inconsistency above, and mentioned only because it explains why the difference gets hit in practice. (#66422 asked for a copy control on whole messages and was closed as a duplicate; this would be a control on a deliberately-chosen block.)