Eugene Volokh noticed a shirt that says </hate>, which presumably means “end hate”. Eugene points out that what it’s really saying is “end hate for now” and will probably resume later, since most </i> are on documents that resume italics later (or at least reserve the right to).
I bet the guy has a <hate> T-shirt in his closet that he was wearing three days before; he’s hated all the stuff between then and the </hate> shirt; and he’ll be wearing the <hate> shirt next time he’s got some hating to do. Plus he certainly wouldn’t just wear the shirt without having worn <hate> before, and on the same page — that would be syntactically non-compliant.
So the solution would then be a shirt that says </hate></html>… except that might just call for the end of mankind, which would kind of defeat the purpose.
I found this by way of Dustbury, who points out that <i> is, in fact, being retired (or at least depricated) in favor of <em> by the powers that be.
About the Author
6 Responses to End Hate (For Now)
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
I love this post 🙂
Why in the world <i> is being deprecated is beyond me, especially in favor of <em>, simply because its replacements are more clumsy and cumbersome. It’s beyond obvious to note <em> has one more character than <i> while diluting the meaning of the tag (I want to put a tag called emphasis around words I want to italicize rather than one that is short for, um, italics?).
What’s more, they’re both truly deprecated in favor of <span style=”font-style: italic;”> which totally blows my mind. I mean, CSS are great in their place but using 34 characters to replace ONE defies explanation…
For the record, we (Mar and I) were <EM> before it was cool. (2000, baby.)
I saw a t-shirt once that fits a niche market:
<boobs> (suitable vertical space) </boobs>
Gotta love HTML-ese.
– happened in, I think, 1983 or so.
Lol… here I put it in, and it killed my comment.
Original comment:
</common sense> </html> – happened in, I think, 1983 or so.
What’s more, they’re both truly deprecated in favor of <span style=”font-style: italic;”> which totally blows my mind. I mean, CSS are great in their place but using 34 characters to replace ONE defies explanation.
I actually had to use font-style/font-weight when I was working in Deseret (in fact, early coding on this blog used that a great deal, even in individual posts… habit). You really do get used to it and it can sometimes be handy to have predefined spans to add and subtract formatting on rather than just adding a tag for each one (ex. <span style=”font-style: italic;font-weight:bold”> versus <i><b>). So there were times that I was glad that we had to do what we had to do. It’s also not bad to have consistent coding throughout, so you know that every instance of something somewhere being bold will contain the text font-weight:bold, but that’s pretty minor.
Of course, because of my employer’s inability to get ANYTHING right, there were some instances where we weren’t allowed to use the CSS properties (aligning to the center we had to use <center>, but right and left we had to use CSS properties.
But you know what drives me crazy? We have font-size and font-weight, but then for underlining and strikethrough it’s not “font” but “text-decoration”. I wish it were either “font” all the way through or “text”. Also, except for blink (which would best be “text-annoy:yes”) all of them are strikethrough, so they could be a little more specific rather than “text decoration” which just makes me think of those goofy fonts with flowers coming out of the top of the letters or somesuch silliness.
I would definitely go for “text-annoy:yes”.
And I think the wearer of the shirt should also don a hat and shoes to match, with “body” tags as appropriate. Then again, I have no imagination.