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

101–110 of 210 posts

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

#101

Post by goto11 »

joatmon-snoo wrote: post #67
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…

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…

Unicode was designed to unify all existing character sets in use at the time. So there are lots of weird historical things which wouldn't necessarily be accepted in Unicode as new proposals.

If the "external link" symbol had occurred in some legacy character set, then it would have been included automatically.

But since it is a new proposal, it will be validated according to Unicodes policy for new symbols.

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

#102

Post by benibela »

goto11 wrote: post #61
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…

Yeah a lot of arguments are of the form "when Unicode can include the pile-of-poop-emoji, surely it should include ". But the question is not if the icon is practical or silly, the question is if it makes sense as a Unicode character or should be handled at some other level like a GUI control or widget. Should GUI icons, widgets and controls be covered by Unicode? That is a can of worms. I understand the usefulness o…

>Should GUI icons, widgets and controls be covered by Unicode? That is a can of worms

They already got all the Wingdings symbols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingdings

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

#103

Post by Aeolun »

m_eiman wrote: post #49
Symbiote wrote: post #23

The closest I can think of is U+2b00 (north east white arrow) followed by U+20de (combining enclosing square). I suspect HN will eat the character: ⬀⃞ although they sometimes pass through if there's enough other text in the comment.

On my blog I use " U+27AB BACK-TILTED SHADOWED WHITE RIGHTWARDS ARROW" E.g. https://www.eiman.tv/blog/posts/lannames/index.html

Just FYI, this looks like a book on my mobile phone.

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

#104

Post by goto11 »

benibela wrote: post #102
goto11 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah a lot of arguments are of the form "when Unicode can include the pile-of-poop-emoji, surely it should include ". But the question is not if the icon is practical or silly, the question is if it makes sense as a Unicode character or should be handled at some other level like a GUI control or widget. Should GUI icons, widgets and controls be covered by Unicode? That is a can of worms. I understand the usefulness o…

>Should GUI icons, widgets and controls be covered by Unicode? That is a can of worms They already got all the Wingdings symbols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wingdings

Yeah because Wingdings was a preexisting character set and Unicode was designed to be a superset of all existing character sets in use.

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

#105

Post by Aeolun »

DagAgren wrote: post #89
chris_wot wrote: post #7

God, they spend so much time on emoji which is much the same. They are becoming a bit of a joke!

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.

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

#106

Post by Aeolun »

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.

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

#107

Post by nabla9 »

DagAgren wrote: post #81
rustybolt wrote: post #18

I think that most people find this hard to digest. The committee approves a ton of emojis with a dozen variations each, a gazillion characters that make it possible to make some weird word soup that breaks sane layout, but including one of the most commonly used symbols is somehow out of the question.

Because all of those symbols are used as part of text, while the external link symbol isn't. It is not part of the text itself. If you copied that text, you would not really expect the link symbol to be copied along with it.

>If you copied that text, you would not really expect the link symbol to be copied along with it.

Because it's not in Unicode it can't be copied. If it was in unicode symbol I would expect it.

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

#108

Post by coldpresent »

joatmon-snoo wrote: post #67
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…

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…

APL is a means of communicating mathematical ideas between people, so it shouldn't be too surprising that it's in Unicode.

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

#109

Post by DagAgren »

nabla9 wrote: post #107
DagAgren wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because all of those symbols are used as part of text, while the external link symbol isn't. It is not part of the text itself. If you copied that text, you would not really expect the link symbol to be copied along with it.

>If you copied that text, you would not really expect the link symbol to be copied along with it. Because it's not in Unicode it can't be copied. If it was in unicode symbol I would expect it.

But it's not part of the text, it is a decoration. Even if it was in Unicode, I would not expect it to be part of the copied text.

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

#110

Post by [deleted] »

bluescrn wrote: post #17
josh_fyi wrote: post #6

The reason for rejection, for better or worse, is that this is a functional element, like a button, rather than part of running text.

Like the play/pause symbols then, which are already in there? And since when was a smiling poop an ‘element of plain text’

[deleted]
Post reply on HN