TBF Unicode contains quite a few absurdities because of its commitment to round trip consistency. That means glyphs which were obviously representations of the same thing (such as ‘[‘ in one character set and ‘[‘ in another) got different code points, The names often reflect that too.
? My problem is not with Unicode here. Unicode has angle-brackets. But SGML (which tbf predates Unicode by a lot) doesn't use them.... It uses less-than/greater-than signs and pretends that they're angle-brackets. They're not. Consequently, HTML <tags> are typographically incorrect and look horrible.
It's made even worse by "programmer fonts" that make the glyphs for less-than/greater-than look like angle-brackets, which is just wrong; now there's no way to write the comparators.
I guess we all just wish that ASCII (and/or keyboards) had one or two more pairs of brackets.
One could argue that because of the widespread use of < and > in HTML, those characters have gained an alternate meaning as brackets. Saying they're NOT BRACKETS is a bit like saying "selfie" is not a word. Just as language changes over time, glyphs can gain alternate meanings through usage.
