From: i18n@...
Message: 4445
Date: 2005-03-23
> i18n@... wrote:Well, a brief way to describe it (since you mentioned you are not
> >
> > 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"?