Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> 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"?

Well, a brief way to describe it (since you mentioned you are not
interested in learning about encodings) is "that which is represented by
the glyph".

E.g. the concept of "the letter A" as opposed to the glyph on a page
that represents the letter A.

Maybe when you said "The closest we have to real angle brackets in standard
fonts is single-guillemets" what you meant was "I consider the glyphs
for single-guillemets in standard fonts to be a closer substitute then
the glyphs for the less-than/greater-than brackets for the glyphs that
are not present for angle brackets"?

Best,

Barry