>So you are referring to the glyphs in particular fonts as opposed to the
> > > The closest we have to real angle brackets in standard
> > > fonts is single-guillemets.
> >
> > Not sure why you consider one closer then the other. I understand why
> > neither *is* an angle bracket, but I don't understand why the desire to
> > avoid overloading (which is reasonable) makes one character arbitrarily
> > "closer" then another. Can you elaborate on what the metric is you are
> > referring to when you say "closer"?
>
> Oxford had a font in which the angle bracket angle was 90 deg., which is
> acceptable but not really good enough. An angle bracket should be
> shallow, so that it doesn't take up more space than the other brackets
> do.
> --[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...
>
>
> www.egroups.com/group/qalam - world's writing systems.
> To unsubscribe: qalam-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
> *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129hpp3pa/M=298184.6191685.7192823.3001176/D=groups/S=1705739206:HM/EXP=1111697339/A=2593423/R=0/SIG=11el9gslf/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60190075>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qalam/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> qalam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:qalam-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>