Semantically Correct, Non-deprecated HTML

[illustrationism]

EDIT: I posted too soon. The tags I was thinking about are not deprecated. My bad.

[Kindred]

feel free to make a theme of your own that does that...

however, i and b are still valid html codes and do a different thing from em and strong and none of those tags are deprecated.

Definition and Usage
The following elements are all font style elements. They are not deprecated, but it is possible to achieve richer effects using style sheets.

<tt> Renders as teletype or mono spaced text
<i> Renders as italic text
<b> Renders as bold text
<big> Renders as bigger text
<small> Renders as smaller text


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Differences Between HTML and XHTML
NONE

[illustrationism]

Hah! You know what? I guess I was thinking about something else... Checked w3 and those tags aren't deprecated.

[Daniel15]

<em> means "emphasis", and <strong> means "strong emphasis". Indeed, they're more semantically correct than <b> and <i>. However, <b> and <i> are not deprecated, and are still in relatively widespread use

Of course, the most semantic approach is to use <strong> if you're using bold for emphasis, or "font-weight: bold " in a style if you're just using it for styling .

[illustrationism]

Right, I know all that. But for some reason I had been under the impression that b and i were deprecated... Someone must have told me that at some point, I guess. Though it must have been someone I wouldn't have questioned though.

In any case, the fact that b and i are not deprecated pretty much nullify the point I was trying to make. But it'd still be nice to see the more semantically correct strong and em tags used in the default code.

[MrPhil]

A bit of a diversion...

Maybe some day WYSIWYG word processors will eliminate "italic" in favor of semantically richer tags, such as "emphasize", "foreign word", "publication title", etc. Text processing markup languages (such as LaTeX) encourage users to use the richer tags, but every word processor I've seen still has "italic". I guess it comes down to the amount of on-screen real estate taken by [ i ] versus three or more longer-winded buttons. If an editor doesn't produce accessible marked up code, I guess not much is lost, but the better WPs will have an option to produce a standardized markup language (e.g., LaTeX), which should have rich tags. Note that some WP users, such as law firms, demand the ability to see the marked up source text.

The same arguments apply to bold/strong emphasis, monospaced/code/variable/keyword, underlined/emphasis/link, and other uses of markup.