Re: "Caret"? [was: Re: Deceptively OT]
- From: Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:04:17 GMT
Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 04:34:40 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
<my.spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
When used for bracketing in ASCII text I think it is reasonableI know < > as angle brackets, as does Wikipedia.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket#Angle_brackets_or_chevrons_.E2.8C.A9.C2.A0.E2.8C.AA
or http://tinyurl.com/lrask
Well, yes and no. They are the ASCII characters closest to being angle
brackets, and are often used as such, but they aren't true typographical
angle brackets, which aren't as pointy, and which have a different Unicode
code point. They are less-than and greater-than signs.
to call them angle brackets to distinguish them from
(parentheses), [square brackets] and {curly brackets}.
Yes, I think that's at covered by my "often used as such" -- I meant to
express no disapproval. Clearly they are the best deal in town when you
need angle brackets in ASCII text.
Actually, the Wikipedia article (which I have now looked at) explains this
quite clearly.
It does:
Nevertheless, since true angle brackets are not available on
a typical computer keyboard, the “less than” and “greater
than” symbols are often used instead. These are often
loosely referred to as angle brackets when used in this way.
Just so.
Sorry to have made you go to the trouble of arguing at length for this
sensible practice. (Which I have snipped.)
Still, it's nice to have real angle brackets universally available these
days in Unicode fonts.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
.
- References:
- Re: Deceptively OT
- From: aspasia
- Re: Deceptively OT
- From: Mike Lyle
- Re: Deceptively OT
- From: Chuck Riggs
- Re: Deceptively OT
- From: James Silverton
- Re: Deceptively OT
- From: LFS
- Re: Deceptively OT
- From: James Silverton
- Re: Deceptively OT
- From: LFS
- Re: Deceptively OT
- From: James Silverton
- Re: Deceptively OT
- From: Skitt
- "Caret"? [was: Re: Deceptively OT]
- From: Woody Wordpecker
- Re: "Caret"? [was: Re: Deceptively OT]
- From: Peter Duncanson (BrE)
- Re: "Caret"? [was: Re: Deceptively OT]
- From: Roland Hutchinson
- Re: Deceptively OT
- Prev by Date: Re: Which is correct?
- Next by Date: Re: Deceptively OT
- Previous by thread: Re: "Caret"? [was: Re: Deceptively OT]
- Next by thread: Re: "Caret"? [was: Re: Deceptively OT]
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|