如何正确指示面包屑内的方向？(How to properly indicate the direction within a breadcrumbs?)

如何正确指示面包屑内的方向？(How to properly indicate the direction within a breadcrumbs?)

我们经常看到人们在其面包屑的HTML代码 [1]中使用“大于”字符（ > ）来指示其面包屑内的方向。 这显然是不正确的，因为“大于”字符用于数学用途，并且实际上没有任何方向含义。

那么是否有一个专用于定向使用的unicode字符？

我搜索了一些箭头形状的字符，比如这个：→，但其中很多也是用于数学用途。 而其他一些人的定义是“非间距合并标记”，我猜这也没有定向意义。

---

如果通过CSS生成的内容或背景图像添加“大于”字符，那很好。

We often see people use the "greater than" character (>) in their breadcrumbs' HTML code[1] to indicate the direction within their breadcrumbs. That obviously is incorrect because the "greater than" character is for mathematical use and doesn't actually have any directional meaning.

So is there an unicode character which is dedicated for directional use?

I searched some arrow shaped characters, such as this one: →, but many of them are for mathematical use as well. And some others' definitions are "nonspacing combining mark", which I guess doesn't have directional meaning either.

---

It's fine if the "greater than" character is added through CSS generated content or background image.

最满意答案

Unicode编码字符，而不是含义。 例如，它没有抽象的方向概念。 箭头字符的特点是可供多种用途; Unicode标准第15章说：“箭头用于各种目的：暗示方向关系，显示逻辑推导或暗示，并表示光标控制键。”

请注意，面包屑并不是关于方向，而是关于层次结构。 这不会改变字符的适用性。

使用“>”和“»”虽然有些不合逻辑且不切实际，但已经变得非常常见，人们已经习惯了它。 赞成“→”或其他箭头字符的主要实际论据是，它比小的“»”更易识别，并且它在排版上看起来比“>”更好。 主要的实际问题也是表现性的：在某些字体中，最明显的是Calibri，“→”看起来很奇怪，有一个巨大的箭头。 但是这个问题可以通过使用不同的字体来避免。

Unicode encodes characters, not meanings. It does not have a character for an abstract concept of direction, for example. The arrow characters are characterized as being for multiple use; the Unicode Standard, chapter 15 says: “Arrows are used for a variety of purposes: to imply directional relation, to show logical derivation or implication, and to represent the cursor control keys.”

Note that breadcrumbs are really not about direction but about hierarchy. This does not change the applicability of characters.

The use of “>” and “­­»”, though somewhat illogical and impractical, has become so common that people are getting used to it. The main practical argument in favor of “→” or some other arrow character is that it is more recognizable than the tiny “»” and that it looks typographically better than “>”. The main practical problem is presentational, too: in some fonts, most notably Calibri, “→” is odd looking, with a huge arrowhead. But this problem can be avoided by using a different font.