Micro-semantics for fun and profit
At corebasis.com, Henning von Vogelsang modestly presents his initiative to use an asterisk as a semantic reference for “source:”
Recent history taught us, if something is simple, makes sense and it is easy to use, it will most likely become a standard. … Through the increasing expansion of Twitter, the at-sign (@) has become a standard reference for a sender’s name. … Another change (introduced 2007) was the usage of hashtags (#). …
To help distinguish the source of information from a person, I propose we start using the following pattern:
- @name
- #tag
- *source
Tags: semantics, micro, asterisk, proposal
Filed under: Code, Community, Standards, Web Standards
I thought the at-sign was a reference for a recipient, not a sender.
Note to those who use twitter: there are more of us that don’t use twitter than you think. Actually, that probably goes for any value of “twitter”.
There’s also the pattern for stock companies: i.e. $APPL
I have been using @name for a long time! I think makes perfect sense. #Tag and *source would make good additions for me, and a practical way to become semantic.
I also like Michael’s idea of $APPL.
However, if only developer adopt this across the web, and not normal folk, does it really work?
Using asterisk to indicate source would overload the symbol. In particular, I’m used to seeing an asterisk used in this way during IM conversations to indicate a correction. For example:
> yeah, I read that on wiikpeida
> *wikipedia
That said, it might be difficult to find an alternative character that does not already have a defined or conventional meaning elsewhere.
@Andrew: I’ve never seen the asterisk used for IM corrections, afair. Everybody I know either just sends the correct version, or uses the equals sign:
wiikpeida=wikipedia
or just
=wikipedia
Depending how obvious the error is/how much in a hurry they are to avoid ridicule. ;-)
Not saying your way is incorrect – we’re talking customs rather than rules, after all – but the equals sign does seem to me to be more appropriate for corrections. Asterisks are commonly used in ordinary text to refer to footnotes, so their use to indicate a net source or reference would make sense.
My 2p…
= for correction. I like that.
Asterisk is still overloaded, it can mean multiplication and is a common wildcard character. But I think those uses are not likely to be confused with *source so, yeah, that could work :)
In regards to special characters in IM’s, Tweets, and even in Emails I think the use of each is either based on:
1. An assumed standard. ie # via twitter
2. or personal interpretation
The latter would prove most difficult for the average user to adopt. It’s one thing from a development point of view to say, this the standard, moving forward xyz should be accented with such and such character. But end users still use IE6 even though it’s not standards compliant, most people don’t write according to AP or any other guidelines. The examples are plentiful, in my opinion.
I’ve seen people use = for a correction but I’ve seen used more often in my circle the use of * to denote a correction. The latter seems more intuitive to me. I find interesting though that emphasizing the copy immediately following the asterisks reads as a source. Again, to me.
That alone would be the most difficult thing to overcome. Although we could justify the *,@, and perhaps even # in regards to semantic meaning I think $ would be more problematic. As what does the sign actually signify. Currency. That’s it. Used in stocks, it’s a reference to the said stocks “value”, but the stock name itself is not the value, it’s an entity with a value.
Then again, I’m no semantics expert.
[...] / * Zeldman [...]