Why isn't the external link symbol in Unicode? (2018) • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by egypturnash » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:08 PM UTC

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…

Let me pass a few things by your sniffer, here.

Here's some random characters from the "Math Symbols" page of OSX's character viewer.

⨐⨔⊹⊰⨶⨹⩫⫸⧯⧼

Did you know that Unicode has an entire set of dominos in it?

🀱🀲🀳🀴🀵🀶🀷🀸🀹🀺🀻🀼🀽🀾🀿🁀🁁🁂🁃🁄🁅🁆🁇🁈🁉🁊🁋🁌🁍🁎🁏🁐🁑🁒🁓🁔🁕🁖🁗🁘🁙🁚🁛🁜🁝🁞🁟🁠🁡

Twice: once horizontally, once vertically.

🁣🁤🁥🁦🁧🁨🁩🁪🁫🁬🁭🁮🁰🁱🁲🁳🁴🁵🁶🁷🁸🁹🁺🁻🁼🁽🁾🁿🂀🂁🂂🂃🂄🂅🂆🂇🂈🂉🂊🂋🂌🂍🂎🂏🂐🂑🂒🂓

I know I sure use Ogham runes in my daily text communications on a constant basis.

ᚃᚄᚓᚈᚚᚙ᚛ᚘ

And Egyptian hieroglyphs.

𓁑𓀳𓂩𓃋𓇀𓈣𓇻𓇼𓇽𓀫

Oh hey and here's a "next page" and "previous page" symbol that "external link" could comfortably sit next to.

⎘⎗

And some miscellaneous arrows.

⤥↪︎↴↶↺⥀⟳⤩⤭⤱⥹⥰⥼⥺⥽⥬⇆⇼⇟⥣↬⇴

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

#182

Post by mFixman » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:15 PM UTC

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…

Unicode has a lot of old "markup" symbols in typography, like the right pointy finger ([1], example in [2]). I see the external link symbol as a widely-used markup symbol of the current age, and it could reasonably be in Unicode.

[1] https://emojipedia.org/white-right-pointing-index/

[2] https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/t60AAOSwAPVZDOK3/s-l300.jpg

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

#183

Post by JoshTriplett » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:19 PM UTC

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…

Writing out the "https://" still seems preferable, as long as http continues to exist and bare URLs try it by default.

(The hsts preload list helps a bit with this, but only for domains registered with it.)

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

#184

Post by pohl » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

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...

That's certainly a useful sniff test, and I think you've made a good case with it. I wonder, though, whether one should also consider a "documentation sniff test", asking: would it make sense to type that symbol into some documentation one is writing about how to use, for example, some software? I think the answer to that question is a clear yes: it might make sense to put this symbol onto such a page, and although being on inert paper (it wouldn't also be an active element) it would certainly be a useful symbol in that hypothetical text.

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

#185

Post by c-smile » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:32 PM UTC

Agree with the rejection.

The same link in different contexts can be as either external or local. So that is a business of UA/renderer to mark it properly.

CSS is quite adequate for that (https://davidwalsh.name/external-links-css) and the image (or whatever author/UA decided to use) can go inline in CSS itself.

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

#186

Post by joelanman » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

We removed it from GOV.UK in 2016:

https://designnotes.blog.gov.uk/2016/11/28/removing-the-exte...

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

#187

Post by 52-6F-62 » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 5:43 PM UTC

kps wrote: post #141

geocar wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Historically were used; what happened to that convention? See " rel="nofollow">http://example.com/> or email me at for details.

I think it's been conflated in online messaging in the last decade or so as people were imitating markup tags to emote. Eg:

Oh yeah, that's right

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

#188

Post by pfranz » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 6:25 PM UTC

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'?

Specifically in those circumstances it's more important than normal; intranet, government, and PDF documents.

Intranet: bespoke documentation to internal processes verses generic documents used for reference.

Government: external references can be hijacked (asking for personal information) or may not represent the government but still have relevant info.

PDF documents: jumping around a PDF document (from a table of contents) is different than going to an external website. Especially if you don't have Internet access at that moment.

I think all of this is significantly more important since browser have been hiding more URLs.

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

#189

Post by scubbo » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 6:25 PM UTC

aendruk wrote: post #147

archgoon wrote: post #145

This would make copying links harder as you would need to avoid copying the link symbol, unless the link symbol was part of the URL.

A typical implementation would use a generated pseudo-element that doesn't get copied.

So, not a unicode character, then - a presentation element that is rendered on unicode.

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

#190

Post by tomc1985 » Thu, Apr 30, 2020, 6:27 PM UTC

stOneskull wrote: post #76

hunter2_ wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plain text environments never encounter the problem that this symbol solves, which is to reveal that an anchor tag (which is not plain text, and typically has visible text that isn't the URL) leads to some other authority. But for a text mode interface that does have full blown anchor tags -- not very mainstream -- you have a point.

Reddit is mainstream. Other forums with linking might find the symbol handy.. Not sure why unicode has got to be about SMS..

There's text-based webbrowsers like Lynx too