[texhax] typset mistranslates the anglbrackets

Uwe Lück uwe.lueck at web.de
Tue Mar 19 14:13:46 CET 2013

Am Montag, den 18.03.2013, 21:28 +0000 schrieb Philip TAYLOR:
> Reinhard Kotucha wrote:
> > Maurice, I don't know why you need < and > in ordinary text.  These
> > symbols make only sense in math formulas, as far as I can see.  And
> > for typesetting XML or HTML typewriter fonts are preferable.
> In books on linguistics (such as Quirk), <Am.E> and <Br.E> are
> regularly recurring terms.

Do they have other math content, such as Chomsky stuff? 
Could those involved in production simply not have known 
about typographically better symbols? Couldn't the 
publishers simply have said "We don't have other angle 
brackets here"? -- TeXbook p. 427, thanks Reinhard.

Practical recommendations:

I sometimes use \angled{...} instead of $\langle$...$\rangle$, 
after \def\angled#1{$\langle$#1$\rangle$} or 

If the mathematical relation symbol is not needed at all, 
<...> may yield good typography after

    \catcode`\<\active \def<#1>{$\langle$#1$\rangle$}

If the math meaning is needed too or if you actually 
want to typeset SGML or XML code, ... let me know. 
doc.sty has something similar to \angled as \meta, 
ltxguide.cls offers <...> for \meta, both much more 
refined than what I have told above.



More information about the texhax mailing list