b and i

[Lou Quillio]

On May 14, 2004, at 11:04 PM, John Gruber wrote:

> Admittedly `br` is a bit unique, but I wouldn't lump it with `i`
> and `b`.

Must disagree.

Look, I scorned <b> and <i> too.  Lately, though, I try to filter hard 
for those occasions where I'm just going for bolding or italics yet 
intend no particular emphasis in terms of screen-reader interpretation. 
  Doesn't come up often but it *does* come up.

"Well then put on the presentational layer, Lou [you corrupting fool]." 
  Why?  Then I'll have to make a whole special container with attribute 
noise and whatnot.  I'll have to maintain it if the document moves.  
Even sitting where it is, some user-agents aren't going to consider 
linked styles ... and I want that passage persistently italicized, 
dammit.  It's the title of full-length work, or some other typesetting 
convention is at hand.  Who knows?  Where I want emphasis I'll use 
<em>.  Where I want persistent italics with no implied vocal emphasis 
I'll use <i>.  Don't tell me there's no place for it.  Screen-readers 
can ignore it:  I'm talking to sighted readers accustomed to print 
conventions.  Or is that not allowed?

Matthew Thomas goes a bit too far, but only a bit.

I chose the wrong term earlier.  <b>, <i> and <br /> can convey certain 
*visual* semantics that only obtain in the sighted world.  They have 
value there and, when used with care, should neither be foregone nor 
elevated to a specially-interpreted vocalization.

Textile has this right.  It's a little harder to mark-up <b> and <i>, 
but it's there if you really mean it.

LQ