The only situation I can think of when there is an established visual standard for certain things that don't really have a semantic emphasis.
I use a simple test: does the meaning conveyed need to remain if CSS is disabled? If yes, then stick with em and strong. The only place I can think of where I used <i> was reproducing a text-only logo (client wanted the general effect to remain no matter what). Half the word was italicised, for no real reason. It was all pretty dubious. Another way to think of it is that I don't think "visual conventions" were trying to say "the important thing for you to know is that this bit of text was thicker than the other bit, for no reason". Generally they were saying "we've used bold to show that this bit of text is significant in some way". In general, I think people mistake debates over i/b vs em/strong as being about those specific tags. They are really just suitable examples to explain the broader concept of semantics - but the downside is many people think standards advocates really really care about strong and em in particular. FWIW. IMHO. ..and other acronyms. cheers, Ben -- --- <http://www.200ok.com.au/> --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
