Of course not. The example you cite, as well as for similar examples, e.g. XML/SGML (and their "applications"), and many others, < > are used just BECAUSE they are in ASCII (and invariant in EBCDIC), and these uses cannot assume that any non-ASCII (and/or, depending on scope, non-EBCDIC) characters are at all directly representable.
Actually, the example you cite were in draft form using the angle
brackets, though no code points were referenced, but that was
changed for the reason I mention here). The reason is the same
for keeping English formal names of Unicode characters purely
in ASCII repertoire (intersected with the invariant EBCDIC
*repertoire*).
This is not maintained for the formal French names though...
Yes. It is often desireable to portrary notations invented to be usable within the ASCII character set with the same set of characters even when presented in text where a larger set of characters are used.
What I find interesting is that glyphs that appear to be GREATER-THAN and LESS-THAN are used for angle brackets in circumstances where keeping the notation in a form that can be coded exactly in ASCII wouldn't seem to be an issue.
In linguistics angle brackets have long been a standard method to indicate grapheme representation as opposed to phonemic or phonetic representation but I've noticed GREATER-THAN and LESS-THAN glyphs being used instead of more traditional angle-bracket glyphs even in books and articles which contain such a large number of special linguistic characters that one would not expect typographical constraints to be an issue.
An example in front of me is _Writing Systems: An introduction to their linguistic analysis_ by Florian Coulmas, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
For a past example, I also have _Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und �bersetzung_ edited by F. R. Kraus (Leiden, 1964) which is an edition of transliterated Old Babylonian letters with German translation. Kraus uses GREATER-THAN and LESS-THAN glyphs which he calls "spitzen Klammern" to indicate characters which he has added to the text as probably omitted in error by the original writer.
This use of such glyphs as angle brackets predates ASCII itself much less the overloaded use of LESS-THAN and GRATER-THAN encouraged by their presence in ASCII and basic EBCDIC (and scientific BCDIC).
Also characters which Kraus judges redundant are enclosed by what he calls "doppelten spitzen Klammern" which are in form U+2AA1 DOUBLE NESTED LESS-THAN and U+2AA2 DOUBLE NESTED GREATER-THAN.
Jim Allan
