Aw: Re: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: External Link Symbol

[Asmus Freytag]

On 4/15/2024 6:55 AM, Marius Spix wrote:
> The pilcrow sign is offically mentioned in RFC 7992. See section 5.2. 
> So I would consider it the conventional representation for anchor links.

I would agree that it is "a convention" for representation of anchor 
links. It happens to work for English, as the pilcrow sign 
conventionally means "paragraph" and the intent in RFC7992 is to provide 
links to all paragraphs.

However, the formatting of RFCs provided as HTML is a different beast 
from generic prescription for formatting all HTML documents. So this 
should not be over interpreted.

A./

> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 12. April 2024 um 18:46 Uhr
> *Von:* "Asmus Freytag via Unicode" <unicode at corp.unicode.org>
> *An:* unicode at corp.unicode.org
> *Betreff:* Re: Aw: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: External Link Symbol
> The first and last choice are arguably not the most conventional 
> representations for these. They are, at best, fallbacks.
> A./
> On 4/12/2024 12:31 AM, Marius Spix via Unicode wrote:
>
>     For all these types of links existing characters can be used:
>     anchor links: U+00B6 ¶ PILCROW SIGN
>     local links: U+1F517 🔗 LINK SYMBOL
>     broken links (also known as red-links): U+26D3 U+200D U+1F4A5
>     CHAINS + ‍ZERO WIDTH JOINER + COLLISION SYMBOL
>     external links: U+2192 → RIGHTWARDS ARROW
>     *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 11. April 2024 um 21:05 Uhr
>     *Von:* "Asmus Freytag via Unicode" <unicode at corp.unicode.org>
>     *An:* "Tom Moore" <tom.moore at microsoft.com>, "Sławomir Osipiuk"
>     <sosipiuk at gmail.com>, "Asmus Freytag via Unicode"
>     <unicode at corp.unicode.org>
>     *Betreff:* Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: External Link Symbol
>     On 4/11/2024 11:47 AM, Tom Moore wrote:
>     > Then multiply that by 2, for links that navigate current tab vs.
>     request to open a new tab.
>
>     Is there a link to samples for all of these as used in practice, or is
>     this just a theoretical distinction?
>
>     A./
>
>     >
>     > -----Original Message-----
>     > From: Unicode <unicode-bounces at corp.unicode.org> On Behalf Of
>     Slawomir Osipiuk via Unicode
>     > Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 9:28 AM
>     > To: asmusf <asmusf at ix.netcom.com>; Asmus Freytag via Unicode
>     <unicode at corp.unicode.org>
>     > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: External Link Symbol
>     >
>     > There are actually three kinds of links that are distinguishable
>     from each
>     > other:
>     >
>     > - A link to a different location in the current document (anchor
>     link/jump
>     > link)
>     > - A link to a resource on the same network/domain as the current
>     document (local link/relative link)
>     > - A link to a resource on a different network (external link)
>     >
>     > All those can appear as symbols, used contrastively, within a
>     run of text.
>     > I'm very surprised these haven't already been encoded and that
>     there is any controversy. The consortium doesn't care much for
>     precendent, but come on, we have "play"and "eject" symbols encoded!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://corp.unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20240415/bcc45374/attachment.htm>