> El 17/02/2014, a las 11:01, Philip Taylor escribió: > > Peter H. wrote: >> I've always had a problem understanding why <em> and <strong> are >> supposedly more semantic than <i> and <b>. > > Because <em> means "emphasised" and <strong> means "strongly emphasised" > (semantic, saying nothing about how they will be rendered) whilst <i> means > "set in italics" and <b> means "set in bold" (presentational, focussing > solely on presentation and saying nothing whatsoever about semantics). There > is nothing "supposedly" about it; the older tags addressed presentation, the > more modern ones address semantics. > > Philip Taylor
What you say is evidently true, but my point is that there are many cases where you want to distinguish words within a text without necessarily implying emphasis. It's also true that the browser by default draws an italic font for 'emphasis' and a bold font for 'strong' so the result is equally presentational. Dunno why they couldn't have left it well alone, stuck with 'i' and 'b' and not created another can of worms. Peter ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
