I'm glad you've raised this as I was of a very similar mind when I read the article. The examples you have provided, IMO, are generally a better and "safer" choice.
After all, <strike> and <u> got the chop in HTML 4.0 (source: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/appendix/changes.html#h-A.3.1.2) so who's to say the same won't (or shouldn't) happen to <b> and <i>....
It feels like just a matter of time...
Also, your alternate language example is bang on. That is one of the primary uses of lang, or xml:lang, or whatever. While the intentions of the article are good, the recommendations come off as a little backwards to me.
Andrew Krespanis.
_________________________________________________________________
Get Extra Storage in 10MB, 25MB, 50MB and 100MB options now! Go to http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-au&page=hotmail/es2
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
