Re: External Link arrow

From: Mark E. Shoulson (
Date: Tue Jan 10 2006 - 14:35:21 CST

  • Next message: Kent Karlsson: "RE: Upper case U+0364 for U+0308"

    Asmus Freytag wrote:

    > the salient argument in favor of such symbols is not their uniforimity
    > in appearance, but their
    > semantics. Just because HTML easily accommodates inline graphics does
    > not mean that
    > new notational conventions must only be realized in that way.

    I've been thinking about this more lately; if you look at the usage of
    this symbol--and it's being used in more and more settings--it seems
    really to be considered "plain text," for all that it's technically an
    inline graphic. What's the environment in which it is appearing?
    Article text, not otherwise heavily seasoned even with tame things like
    superscripts and italics. It feels awfully plain-text in the way it's
    used, though not the actual mechanics of course.

     From another perspective--definitely *not* one that guides the Unicode
    decision process--we can consider this prescriptively: wouldn't such a
    symbol be a Good Thing to have as plain text, if we could decree a
    standard convention? I know Unicode isn't in the business of creating
    symbols but of recording them; I'm not trying to change that. Though
    there does seem to be some sort of attempt by content-providers to
    invent a symbol for "offsite link".

    > This does not try to make a complete case, just to answer your specific

    > objections.

    No, it's not a complete case. My whole intent (so far) is just to raise
    the notion and get people thinking about it.


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 10 2006 - 14:46:17 CST