WCAG seems to say use semantic markup for special text. <b> and <i> qualify as semantic markup in HTML5. Therefore I see no reason not to use those tags.
But it actually matters what they mean. It matters as part of the HTML standard and it matters for accessibility too. And that's the point of my comment: there are cases in which you will use <b> and <i> because they provide the right meaning. For example, if you use <em> for an idiomatic or technical term, you are using the wrong semantic tag. It should be <i> instead. And if you use <i> just to have something in italics, then yes, that's a wrong use of <i>.
Doesn't matter what
<b>and<i>means. The WCAG accessibilty standard tells you to use<strong>and<em>for assistive technology.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/html/H49
WCAG seems to say use semantic markup for special text.
<b>and<i>qualify as semantic markup in HTML5. Therefore I see no reason not to use those tags.But it actually matters what they mean. It matters as part of the HTML standard and it matters for accessibility too. And that's the point of my comment: there are cases in which you will use
<b>and<i>because they provide the right meaning. For example, if you use<em>for an idiomatic or technical term, you are using the wrong semantic tag. It should be<i>instead. And if you use<i>just to have something in italics, then yes, that's a wrong use of<i>.OMG I am so sorry, I read this wrong the whole time...