> In the same way that using semantic tags when all you want is
> formatting is equally discouraged. Ideally (perhaps) there would be
> ways of indicating both semantics, and pure formatting.
You can still use <b>bold</b> and <i>italic</i> tags if that's all you
mean, though I think that is rare.
> If there
> isn't, then either solution is really equally bad.
True.
> I would say that
> ''italics'' are very rarely used for emphasis in our articles, and
> much more commonly for simple formatting - names of albums,
> symphonies, quotations etc. I could be wrong there.
Ah. It seems to me that emphasis is used more often than simple
formatting, and I was changing ''quote marks'' to <i>italic tags</i>
in the few cases where it's appropriate, based on the way I learned
when I first started editing. Then I was looking through the source
code one day, and realized they were both being rendered as italics,
so I was confused.
So, if I understand correctly, a bunch of people were misusing
emphasis tags to mean italics, so someone changed the emphasis tags to
mean italics, and now people are misusing italics tags to mean
emphasis? :-)
: Are we going to change the dictionary definition colon markup to
render as CSS indentation now, since many people use it for
indentation?
> What's the specific problem that <I> tags are causing?
None at all from a practical standpoint. Just curious.