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

171–180 of 210 posts

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

#171

Post by Freak_NL »

amelius wrote: post #85
DagAgren wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The backspace symbol makes perfect sense. You may very well want to say "Press ⌫ to delete the selected object".

But you may also say "Next to the link you will see [EXTERNAL LINK] which indicates that the link leads to another website."

That reasoning would make every conceivable icon a valid target for inclusion.

To actually get the character included, you can't just reason that it might be used in a certain way, you will have to demonstrate it with actual and authentic use in the wild. The accepted proposal for the inclusion of the power symbol is a nice example of how this works.

If you can find a bunch of printed manuals or books or websites that actually use this icon in this manner you might be able to submit a successful proposal.

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

#172

Post by gnulinux »

recursive wrote: post #163
gnulinux wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly, my point is pile of poo is such a bad example since recently it's probably in 1%-th percentile of most used unicode symbols in plaintext. It's similar to arguing something like ∆ or é does not belong to unicode.

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

#173

Post by rini17 »

goto11 wrote: post #121
ken wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thus the inherent contradiction: Unicode is for text, it must include all existing character sets which it aims to unify, and previous character sets weren’t only used for text. The obvious hack is to make a custom character set called “Rejected by Unicode”.

It would probably be easier just to design a png or svg icon for the UI widgets you need. Then you don't have to lobby a consortium and wait for them to accept your icon.

To offload the design to the font foundry is even easier :)

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

#174

Post by mark-r »

bmn__ wrote: post #100
joatmon-snoo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This made me stop and think because I've never really wondered about what belongs and doesn't belong in Unicode, and then I went looking at what strange corners Unicode has and wow the "Miscellaneous Technical" code block is such a strange thing. * It has APL symbols (checking the Wiki article on APL syntax and the APL standard, it seems that APL programs can be represented entirely in Unicode - which makes sense, bu…

> what belongs and doesn't belong in Unicode That's simple. The justification for most characters, including the exemplary one you mentioned, is that they were already en code d in some other repertoire. The consortium's task is to collect and uni fy them.

In particular there was a desire to make sure that a round trip from some legacy character set to Unicode and back to the legacy character set wouldn't lose information. So many characters that you would assume to be the same are given multiple code points to make that possible.

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

#175

Post by MauranKilom »

lstamour wrote: post #50
Symbiote wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, for a single-character symbol, there's either ⤤ (2924 north east arrow with hook) or ⮳ (2bb3 ribbon arrow up right). The combining square isn't exactly centered, depending on where I paste it. There's a useful selection of arrows here: http://xahlee.info/comp/unicode_arrows.html

The closest alternative I’ve seen is definitely north east arrow with hook. Personally, I like its simpler appearance. Ideally you would still want to label it on hover with some alt or title attribute text.

I would expect the north east arrow with hook to be used for "go back up", e.g. after having followed a footnote. The hook implies an element of "returning" for me.

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

#176

Post by GekkePrutser »

ape4 wrote: post #124

Glad they say "no" sometimes

Didn't stop them from making Unicode an overcomplicated clusterfuck of combination codes though... Referring to things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-width_joiner . It's become almost impossible to build an accurate parser now.

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

#177

Post by GekkePrutser »

clarry wrote: post #68
saagarjha wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m actually fairly annoyed that a lot of obvious superscripts, subscripts, and strikethroughs are missing.

I'm actually more annoyed that they are there in the first place. Unicode can't seem to decide whether it's about just encoding text or also doing presentation/formatting (and now piles of poo and colorful emoji, what next, animations?), so now it's a bit of both, what a mess. It's making life hard and breaking things for applications that assume text is just text, and the presentational features are not enough to av…

You're so right... Unicode is making things too complex, and intruding on various formatting issues. Case in point: The skin tone modifiers. Or this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-width_joiner

There doesn't exist any parser that does it 100% correct. And parsing it is becoming so complex that it's causing bugs and vulnerabilities (it's not a coincidence that so many remote exploits use some kind of unicode to trigger it).

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

#178

Post by ViViDboarder »

geocar wrote: post #138
andrewzah wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds like an issue that could be solved by updating the renderer's gtld list with the various new ones that have been coming out instead of adding invisible meta characters. Phones already do it for .com, .gov, etc, but our cutesy .sh, .dev, .rocks, .xyz, etc will take a bit to catch up.

> That sounds like an issue that could be solved by updating the renderer's gtld list with the various new ones that have been coming out instead of adding invisible meta characters. Negative. My renderer is a piece of paper.

If your renderer is a piece of paper, how is Unicode relevant at all? You’re free to freehand anything you’d like.

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

#179

Post by chadlavi »

vagab0nd wrote: post #156

Talk about timing, I was just looking for this in unicode for my website yesterday. Didn't find anything that looked good so ended up going with Font Awesome: https://fontawesome.com/icons/external-link-alt?style=solid I think it's a missed opportunity for unicode.

try `\u2197`. You can see it used on external links here: https://chadlavi.github.io/clear/#/link#examples
Post reply on HN