<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/15/2024 6:55 AM, Marius Spix
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-57345136-717f-4236-aec8-c922af728e89-1713189303958@3c-app-webde-bap38">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>The pilcrow sign is offically mentioned in RFC 7992. See
section 5.2. So I would consider it the conventional
representation for anchor links.</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>A./<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-57345136-717f-4236-aec8-c922af728e89-1713189303958@3c-app-webde-bap38">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>
<div>
<div name="quote"
style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding: 10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag,
12. April 2024 um 18:46 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Asmus Freytag via Unicode"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"><unicode@corp.unicode.org></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: Aw: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: External Link
Symbol</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">The first and last choice
are arguably not the most conventional representations
for these. They are, at best, fallbacks.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A./</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"> </div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/12/2024 12:31 AM,
Marius Spix via Unicode wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>For all these types of links existing
characters can be used:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>anchor links: U+00B6 ¶ PILCROW SIGN</div>
<div>
<div>local links: U+1F517 🔗 LINK SYMBOL</div>
<div>broken links (also known
as red-links): U+26D3 U+200D U+1F4A5 CHAINS
+ ZERO WIDTH JOINER + COLLISION SYMBOL</div>
<div>external links: U+2192 → RIGHTWARDS ARROW</div>
<div>
<div
style="margin: 10.0px 5.0px 5.0px 10.0px;padding: 10.0px 0 10.0px 10.0px;border-left: 2.0px solid rgb(195,217,229);">
<div style="margin: 0 0 10.0px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Donnerstag,
11. April 2024 um 21:05 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Asmus Freytag via Unicode" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
onclick="" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><unicode@corp.unicode.org></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Tom Moore" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:tom.moore@microsoft.com"
onclick="" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><tom.moore@microsoft.com></a>,
"Sławomir Osipiuk" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:sosipiuk@gmail.com"
onclick="" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><sosipiuk@gmail.com></a>,
"Asmus Freytag via Unicode" <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
onclick="" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><unicode@corp.unicode.org></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: External
Link Symbol</div>
<div>On 4/11/2024 11:47 AM, Tom Moore wrote:<br>
> Then multiply that by 2, for links that
navigate current tab vs. request to open a
new tab.<br>
<br>
Is there a link to samples for all of these
as used in practice, or is<br>
this just a theoretical distinction?<br>
<br>
A./<br>
<br>
><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: Unicode <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:unicode-bounces@corp.unicode.org" onclick=""
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><unicode-bounces@corp.unicode.org></a>
On Behalf Of Slawomir Osipiuk via Unicode<br>
> Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2024 9:28 AM<br>
> To: asmusf <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:asmusf@ix.netcom.com"
onclick="" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><asmusf@ix.netcom.com></a>;
Asmus Freytag via Unicode <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
onclick="" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><unicode@corp.unicode.org></a><br>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: External Link
Symbol<br>
><br>
> There are actually three kinds of links
that are distinguishable from each<br>
> other:<br>
><br>
> - A link to a different location in the
current document (anchor link/jump<br>
> link)<br>
> - A link to a resource on the same
network/domain as the current document
(local link/relative link)<br>
> - A link to a resource on a different
network (external link)<br>
><br>
> All those can appear as symbols, used
contrastively, within a run of text.<br>
> 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!<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>