Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

dafoster.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 210 posts

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#161

Post by qqn »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #42

I find myself agreeing with the rejection. As much as I dislike the ridiculous amount of emojis in Unicode, and their increasingly widespread use, they do fit plain text communication, whereas an "external link" symbol does not. My heuristic is something I'll call SMS sniff test : would it make sense to type that symbol into a text message? If it wouldn't, then it doesn't belong in Unicode. "External link" symbol tel…

On the other hand, I used to use both "play" and "link" symbols in past resumes, where I could have really used a proper link symbol. Ideally I wanted something universally known, but the box with an arrow that Wikipedia used wasn't as well known then, and was always a small image and not available as a character. I opted for the interlinked chain links symbol instead.

I would propose updating this SMS sniff test to a Wikipedia sniff test.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#162

Post by recursive »

chrisseaton wrote: post #123
pfranz wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it often in intranets, wikis, and PDF documentation. It's an additional context clue that you're leaving a closed website. The most egregious examples give you a separate click-through screen when leaving the website. Government web pages seem to do this the most. It would be nice if we could all use a standard icon or some other constant UI element--like a single underline for internal references and double un…

Yeah but why? What do people do with the information that a link is external? Do people think 'I'll follow this link - oh no wait a minute it's external I won't'?

> Do people think 'I'll follow this link - oh no wait a minute it's external I won't'?

Some do, sometimes. Or perhaps they'll think 'I won't follow this link - oh no wait a minute, it's external I will'.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#163

Post by recursive »

gnulinux wrote: post #160
recursive wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only possible to use it in a text message because it's a unicode character. If external link was a character, would people use it? I don't know. Do you?

Maybe, maybe not, we don't know. What I know is that even my mom and grandma use pile of poo on facebook. Will they use "external link" symbol? I would guess not, but maybe.

> Will they use "external link" symbol? I would guess not.

In that way, it would be no different from 99% of unicode characters then.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#166

Post by jerf »

geocar wrote: post #131
TeMPOraL wrote: post #42

I find myself agreeing with the rejection. As much as I dislike the ridiculous amount of emojis in Unicode, and their increasingly widespread use, they do fit plain text communication, whereas an "external link" symbol does not. My heuristic is something I'll call SMS sniff test : would it make sense to type that symbol into a text message? If it wouldn't, then it doesn't belong in Unicode. "External link" symbol tel…

> My heuristic is something I'll call SMS sniff test: would it make sense to type that symbol into a text message? If it wouldn't, then it doesn't belong in Unicode. I accept that heuristic, and find myself agreeing with it for the purposes of the external link character. Let me try to convince you: This is a real conversation: A> Are you familiar with Homebrew? You can get it from brew.sh. B> Ok. Where is brew.sh? I…

There is no squiggle that I can not hypothesize some way of using in a text message. The question is more, is there already some existing demand for it, before you asked the question? To which the answer would seem to be "no".

That's a contingent answer. If you, say, set out to try to convince the world to use it that way, and created that demand, then by golly, that demand would exist at that point and the answer could change. But hypothesizing some possible text message that could use it isn't strong enough to argue for inclusion in the standard because every possible proposal passes that test.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#168

Post by cryptonector »

Aeolun wrote: post #106
dan-robertson wrote: post #96

I think an issue with the arguments here is that each side is making its arguments based around quite different standards. Unicode have two standards for inclusion of symbols, one for adding new symbols and one for merging in characters from other character sets. The rejection is based on the first standard for adding new characters. The arguments against it seem to be based on taking the second standard as precedent…

So the smartest way to go about this is to create a whole new character set for external link symbols? That seems like a really roundabout way to get this thing accepted.

The word you're looking for is "script". And, no.

One has to make a better argument for the external link symbol getting a codepoint assignment. TFA, for example, makes an argument based on emojis -- certainly that's strong enough to blunt the UTC's rejection rationale, but perhaps not enough to win approval outright.

Addressing all the arguments used in the rejection is important, of course. The fact that currently images are used is hardly dispositive: that's business as usual for missing Unicode assignments!!

But there are probably stronger arguments for rejection than adoption than the UTC made that it could make the next time this comes up.

The best argument for rejection that I can think of has to do with layering. An external link character isn't very useful without the actual external link, but the link belongs a layer up: not in the text, but in the markup. Well, if the link belongs a layer up, why not also the symbol? Alternatively, more markup can move into Unicode. There has been and will continue to be some pressure to move more semantics from markup to text, but it's probably best to resist that pressure.

On the other hand, a solid argument for adoption may involve text rendering of HTML. Think of lynx/elinks and other such browsers, which can't use images. An external link character could prove useful in distinguishing the rendering of linked text from, say, underlined non-linked text.

I'm surprised these arguments didn't come up. Or maybe they did -- I've not gone down the rabbit hole on this one, and probably I won't.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#169

Post by nfoz »

Aeolun wrote: post #105
DagAgren wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emoji are not at all the same. People type emoji as part of their text. People do not type "external link symbol" as part of their text.

What if external link is the symbol I want to type? Would exit sign be appropriate, because I’m fairly certain there’s an emoji for that.

As per https://www.unicode.org/pending/symbol-guidelines.html

> The 'symbol fallacy’

> The 'symbol fallacy’ is to confuse the fact that "symbols have semantic content" with "in text, it is customary to use the symbol directly for communication". These are two different concepts. An example is traffic signs and the communication of traffic engineers about traffic signs. In their (hand-)written communication the engineers are much more likely to use the words "stop sign" when referring to a stop sign, than to draw the image. Mathematicians are more likely to draw an integral sign and its limits and integrands than to write an equation in words.

So where "stop sign" is in Unicode, it's a bit nuanced as per the manner.

Re: Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018)

#170

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #42

I find myself agreeing with the rejection. As much as I dislike the ridiculous amount of emojis in Unicode, and their increasingly widespread use, they do fit plain text communication, whereas an "external link" symbol does not. My heuristic is something I'll call SMS sniff test : would it make sense to type that symbol into a text message? If it wouldn't, then it doesn't belong in Unicode. "External link" symbol tel…

It serves the same function as footnote daggers. The Unicode consortium has odd priorities when they will happily add hundreds of emojis but more generally useful things are held in disregard.
Post reply on HN