<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">In this context it is interesting that
RFC7992 suggests use of a character code and, incidentally, makes
the case that there are use-cases where reliance on external
images is explicitly ruled out.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">This underscores the "chicken-and-egg"
problem we so often encounter in character encoding. Unless a
character is encoded, it can't be used in a text-only environment.<br>
<br>
In this particular case, my reading would be that there's nothing
inherently favoring an image-only solution. It just happens that
this was the only way to go in early implementations, but as
RFC7992 reminds us, there are use cases where that is not an
option.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">As a result, as I wrote in an earlier
part of this thread, I can't get the warm and fuzzies about
applying the "app iconography" principle here. Particularly not
for something that always appears in connection with and part of a
text block. There are many other examples that are much more
removed from text and to which that principle is more properly
applicable.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">A./<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/18/2024 10:13 AM, Peter Constable
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:DS0PR12MB753582F71687A3E858A878EE860E2@DS0PR12MB7535.namprd12.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator"
content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:"Yu Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}@font-face
{font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 4 2 4 2 2 3;}@font-face
{font-family:"\@Yu Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ligatures:none;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">></span>
If I were a submitter, I would treat something like the
citation of RFC7992 then not as something that "settles" an
encoding question, but one that calls for further research to
see whether that particular convention is found in (enough)
other places to help reach a decision.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Completely agree with that.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, there is another factor in this
that UTC will consider and _<i>has</i>_ considered: is the
symbol used in public text data interchange. Wrt external link
symbol, UTC has previously decided that this falls into the
general class of symbols used in app iconography and that that
evidence based on such usage is not sufficient for encoding as
a textual character.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Peter<span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Asmus Freytag <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:asmusf@ix.netcom.com"><asmusf@ix.netcom.com></a>
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, April 17, 2024 5:56 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Peter Constable <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pgcon6@msn.com"><pgcon6@msn.com></a>;
Marius Spix <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:marius.spix@web.de"><marius.spix@web.de></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Aw: Re: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: External
Link Symbol<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">This spells out what I tried to imply by
warning against overinterpreting this example. However,
whether something is a normative specification, and the
limits of its normative scope is always only one aspect.
Another aspect is whether it represents a record of
somebody's explicit convention for what to do for a given
feature, such as "anchor" links in the current example.<br>
<br>
Having a written convention that documents intent is
preferable over relying on mere observation, for example,
noticing that certain documents or certain platforms just
happen to behave in a certain way. But, on it's own, just
because something is written down is certainly not enough to
suggest that the convention is common, let alone universal.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">From Unicode's perspective, a convention
does not have to be normative for general purpose documents
to be taken into account in making informed encoding
decisions. The degree to which it is followed in practice
(both in its original domain as well as in analogous cases)
is usually more important.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">If I were a submitter, I would treat
something like the citation of RFC7992 then not as something
that "settles" an encoding question, but one that calls for
further research to see whether that particular convention
is found in (enough) other places to help reach a decision.
Alternatively, it might serve as a data point for the
conclusion that there's no single convention (with further
research needed to find out whether this represents a case
of a small number of alternate coexisting conventions, or
the case of something where the real world hasn't settled on
anything). <o:p>
</o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">A./<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 4/17/2024 5:32 PM, Peter Constable
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Let’s be
clear: all that RFC 7992 is doing is documenting the
conventions used in the non-canonical HTML versions of
IETF RFCs. Unless in some other context there is a
specification that normatively references RFC 7992, it has
no real import beyond the HTML versions of IETF RFCs.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt">Peter</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div
style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">
Unicode
<a href="mailto:unicode-bounces@corp.unicode.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"><unicode-bounces@corp.unicode.org></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Asmus Freytag via Unicode<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 15, 2024 7:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Marius Spix <a
href="mailto:marius.spix@web.de"
moz-do-not-send="true"><marius.spix@web.de></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Aw: Re: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re:
External Link Symbol</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 4/15/2024 6:55 AM, Marius Spix
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
pilcrow sign is offically mentioned in RFC 7992. See
section 5.2. So I would consider it the conventional
representation for anchor links.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</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.<o:p></o:p></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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>A./<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt;-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
name="quote">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Freitag,
12. April 2024 um 18:46 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Asmus Freytag via Unicode" <a
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<unicode@corp.unicode.org></a><br>
<b>An:</b> <a
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org"
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">unicode@corp.unicode.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: Aw: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re:
External Link Symbol</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">The
first and last choice are arguably not the
most conventional representations for these.
They are, at best, fallbacks.</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">A./</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">On
4/12/2024 12:31 AM, Marius Spix via Unicode
wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">For
all these types of links existing
characters can be used:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">anchor
links: U+00B6 ¶ PILCROW SIGN</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">local
links: U+1F517 </span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Segoe UI Emoji",sans-serif">🔗</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> LINK
SYMBOL</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">broken
links (also known
as red-links): U+26D3 U+200D U+1F4A5
CHAINS + ZERO WIDTH JOINER
+ COLLISION SYMBOL</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">external
links: U+2192
</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">→</span><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
RIGHTWARDS ARROW</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<div
style="border:none;border-left:solid #C3D9E5 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 8.0pt;margin-left:7.5pt;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-right:3.75pt;margin-bottom:3.75pt">
<div style="margin-bottom:7.5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Gesendet:</span></b><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> Donnerstag,
11. April 2024 um 21:05 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Asmus Freytag via
Unicode" <a
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">
<unicode@corp.unicode.org></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Tom Moore" <a
href="mailto:tom.moore@microsoft.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><tom.moore@microsoft.com></a>,
"Sławomir Osipiuk"
<a
href="mailto:sosipiuk@gmail.com"
target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><sosipiuk@gmail.com></a>,
"Asmus Freytag via Unicode"
<a
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><unicode@corp.unicode.org></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [EXTERNAL] Re:
External Link Symbol</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">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
href="mailto:unicode-bounces@corp.unicode.org" 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
href="mailto:asmusf@ix.netcom.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true"><asmusf@ix.netcom.com></a>;
Asmus Freytag via Unicode
<a
href="mailto:unicode@corp.unicode.org" 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>
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><span
style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> <o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<p><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>