On Sun, 6 May 2001, David J. Perry wrote:
> In classical studies, characters with the shape of U+3008/09, 300A-300F,
> 3016/17, and 301A/1B are sometimes used to mark various kinds of editorial
> uncertainty or conjecture in a text. The first and last pairs in my list
> are the most common by far (I know 3008/09 has another version somewhere in
> the math block). The guillemets (U+00AB/BB) and the greater than/less than
> signs do not have the appropriate shapes. Since these are already in
> Unicode, it would seem best to use them rather than proposing them for
> inclusion in another range.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand how U+00AB/U+00BB or U+226A/U+226B don't
have the "appropriate" shape, but that U+300A/U+300B would. U+300A/U+300B
are taller than the guillemets U+00AB/U+000BB, but they tend to not be
proportionally-spaced and are not centered inside their "square" (i.e.,
U+300A, as a left bracket, is padded out with white space to the left of
it), not to mention having vertical forms (probably not relevant for you).
In lieu of U+3008/U+3009, why not U+003C/U+003E, U+2039/U+203A, or
U+2329/U+232A? (All of these are suggested on p. 568 of TUS3.0.)
Similarly, in lieu of U+300C/U+300D, why not U+2308/U+230B (also
suggested, but they are really math symbols).
I wasn't aware that brackets similar to U+300E/U+300F, U+3016/U+3017,
U+301A/U+301B existed outside of CJK usage, although they don't seem to be
as common, and I have no idea what U+301A/U+301B would be used for.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Jul 06 2001 - 00:18:16 EDT