[GrannyGrump]

Ok, let me amend my post with some nit-noid examples.

Let's just pretend my Body Text is set to Sans-Serif. Let's further postulate, that the body font displays in BLACK.

Simultaneously, I want to use BOLD for typographical bolding, using the *sans-serif* Body Font, for Chapter Titles and subheadings. And ONLY for that text, no other. Because this is TYPOGRAPHICAL markup -- NOT semantic.

At the very same time, I want italics for book titles, ship names, foreign languages, and footnotes. And ONLY for that text, no other. Because this is TYPOGRAPHICAL markup -- NOT semantic.

So now, let's say I want my EMphasis to appear in BOLD DARK RED *SERIF* FONT. (This is for those shouted laughing sarcastic remarks)

Meanwhile, I style my STRONG to appear in DARK BLUE MONOSPACE FONT. (This is for that important information, like historical dates and names, that you want to go look up in Wikipedia)

(By the way, this kind of thing is VERY useful for proof-reading)

One point of all this is that limiting to only <i> and <b> italics and bold is too -- well, limiting. And I don't see why the use of 'em' and 'strong' should be discouraged. It's a little like being offered a new car for free, and saying, well, my old coaster bike still gets me to the store, no thanks.