I don't really buy this. Google image search "external link symbol", the symbol is just generically useful.
I can buy that the name in unicode should be something other than "external link". It could be something more generic like "external reference". Boom, now it can be accepted because it's not tied to <a>.
The problem with the rejection is that "that last bit of differently-formatted text is an active element in this application, leading to an outside resource" is that it's kind of a strawman: why be so specific just to reject it because you've decided to be so specific?
Though all of that justification is kind of unnecessary. Really, I just find it ridiculous that the unicode group is going to suddenly become prude about a ubiquitous symbol yet have 20 different check mark symbols. Sure, if everyone made the "but there are 20 different check mark symbols so why can't I have <pet symbol>?" argument, unicode would be even more ridiculous. And that's an argument to reject <pet symbol>, not one of the most ubiquitous symbols on the internet.
"Unicode has a bunch of stupid symbols, so it should at least add the most useful symbols that we use on the internet" really is a good argument.
I can buy that the name in unicode should be something other than "external link". It could be something more generic like "external reference". Boom, now it can be accepted because it's not tied to <a>.
The problem with the rejection is that "that last bit of differently-formatted text is an active element in this application, leading to an outside resource" is that it's kind of a strawman: why be so specific just to reject it because you've decided to be so specific?
Though all of that justification is kind of unnecessary. Really, I just find it ridiculous that the unicode group is going to suddenly become prude about a ubiquitous symbol yet have 20 different check mark symbols. Sure, if everyone made the "but there are 20 different check mark symbols so why can't I have <pet symbol>?" argument, unicode would be even more ridiculous. And that's an argument to reject <pet symbol>, not one of the most ubiquitous symbols on the internet.
"Unicode has a bunch of stupid symbols, so it should at least add the most useful symbols that we use on the internet" really is a good argument.