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>.
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.
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
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...
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.