i18n@... wrote:

>
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >
> > > > 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.
>
> So you are referring to the glyphs in particular fonts as opposed to the
> abstract characters themselves?

What is an "abstract character"?
--
Peter T. Daniels grammatim@...