C.E. Petit@383: Me, I'm plumping for:
<p lang="EN-SARC"></p>
...with "SARK" as the alternate version for languages that use a variation on the Greek spelling instead of the Latin:
<p lang="FI-SARK"></p>
But the real question about this much-needed addition to the XHTML spec is how the companies that make web browsers and other user agents should handle the default presentation for information marked up in this way. Screen readers would definitely need a separate "sarcastic voice" in each supported languages.
It's my official recommendation that graphical browsers refrain from visually differentiating text marked up as sarcasm unless the user presses a special key combination to indicate that he or she didn't get the joke. A unique key combination is essential; ctrl+W+T+F is recommended as the default combination.
Once this special combination is activated, Firefox, Safari, Opera, and most other browsers should cause the text marked up as sarcasm to flash in a sequence of eye-catching colors, perhaps accompanied by an embedded sound effect.
Internet Explorer should not recognize the designated key combination. Instead, a special-edition extended Microsoft keyboard should be made available, and should include a large, easily located special key marked with the interrobang (‽ or ?!, for those with less gifted browsers). When the user presses this special key, all text marked up as sarcasm should flash twice in neon green, and then Internet Explorer should close itself and the user should be logged out of his or her computer.
Lynx and other text-only browsers should ignore the markup entirely, as it's assumed that users of such browsing agents possess sufficient cognitive sophistication (and experience with the archaic customs of the pre-Netscape 2 interweb) to recognize sarcasm without the provision of additional interface cues.
This was *precisely* what I needed after a long day in the brain mines. Teresa's "stupid hair" comment, coming as it did after such a beautiful takedown, and "We are Toroid ELVES filling BOOKshelves" completely restored my good cheer.
Leslie Harpold, keeper for years of the delightful advent calendar mentioned above and beloved of many, died December 12th, five days after her advent calendar stopped. She will be greatly missed.
Leslie Harpold's calendar is wonderful again this year. Each day includes a Christmas memory (many submitted by guests), an activity, gadget, or poem, and a link to something like the How to use Furoshiki.
Marilee -- as Andrew notes, we'll need more information if you want to talk about your opinion. I could make up a number of arguments that result in the statements you've made, but that wouldn't be productive or respectful. If you'd like to break down your position, I'd be interested in discussing it.
Adam, stop trying so hard. It's a lucky thing, not a fortuitous development. And it's the way you write, not the manner in which you write.
I comment here very rarely, but this made me wince. Context: I'm a professional editor. I care deeply about clear thought and clear language. I loathe clumsy writing and sloppy argumentation and I just completed a two-day slush-reading stint full of both.
And yet...JR, if you're really trying to encourage Adam to become a better writer, do you honestly think that chiding him repeatedly even after his (remarkably civilized) responses is a good way to go about it? Don't you suspect that relentless aggression is rather more likely to sour him on your argument? Urgh.
Adam, I was going to send you a private note congratulating you on your graceful response to your critics, but then I'd be a lurker who supports you in e-mail, and that would do you no good at all. :)
And while I'm here:
It should be "sacred and evil" and "good and bad," not "good and evil."
It's possible that you're being sarcastic and I"m missing it. If so, please ignore me.
Surely "profane" is the opposite of "sacred." Or "unholy." Neither is synonymous with "evil" except in the minds of certain religious extremists. I think you're conflating the ethical/philosophical "good" (let's call it Good), which properly opposes Evil, with the measure of quality (high quality vs. low quality). The two meanings sometimes overlap, but often do not.
A piece of fruit might be good or bad, but not Good or Evil. A piece of art might arguably be good and Good, good and Evil, bad and Good, or bad and Evil. (I'm not inclined to judge art in those terms myself, but please bear with my slightly sloppy example.)
Jonquil, your Auden's been mis-copied. That should be: "We must love one another or die."
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 3 |
| 2006 | 4 |
| 2004 | 1 |
Total: 8 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Erin:
Show all comments by Erin.