Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/3095
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Links are useful to add additional information or second meaning or special flavour to certain words. This is especially useful for informal texts. Example:

    [Some programs](wiki://Metasploit_Project) allow [users](wiki://Script_kiddie) to launch
    security attacks with ease and comfort. This [certainly](wiki://Wishful_thinking) puts them
    to the position of the [respectable IT security specialists](tvtropes://SeriousBusiness).

When writing electronic text sometimes I can use various technical things: collapsible "spoilers", usual links, formatting, that-dashy-underlined-text-with-a-tooltip.

In chats all that is usually not available, so I use wiki, html or markdown syntax to show how that text expected to look (as well is made-up elements like `<joke></joke>`)

When writing the text on paper we on one hand can format it (using bold/italic, subscript/superscripts, drawing frames and arrows in the text), but on the other hand can't use dynamic things like hidable sections or links or tooltips. Sometimes preceding the word with stroked "implied" word produce what I should attain, but it more looks like fixing something, not adding.

How to put links from written text? Requirements:

- It should not detract from the main text too much. For example just using markdown syntax will put too many '['s and ')'s and make the link too noticeable;
- The range of text which is a link should be visible. For example just using subscript looks well only for one word;
- The link destination should be provided. For example, just underlining it ("There's a link here") is not enough.

Are there established ways how to use computer-originated features in plain old written text? Should it be underlined, should there be any brackets or arrows?

Note: [Migrated](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/29548/how-its-better-to-format-links-in-text-written-on-paper) from english.stackexchange.com.

Original score: 3