# Beyond Markdown

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/beyond-markdown/2787>\
**Category:** Spec\
**Created:** [April 17, 2018, 6:37am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/beyond-markdown/2787 "2018-04-17T06:37:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 64

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Crissov](https://talk.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/crissov/32/1455_2.png) [@Crissov](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/Crissov)\
**Post date:** [July 17, 2022, 7:41pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/beyond-markdown/2787/64 "2022-07-17T19:41:17Z")

</div>

I explored that idea in this brief thread:

> [@Em/strong vs. i/b or cite/dfn etc](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/em-strong-vs-i-b-or-cite-dfn-etc/1242):
>
> Most documentation and GUI toolbar icons imply that the markup generated from \_, \*, \_\_ and \*\* ist italics and boldface when it really is \<em\> and \<strong\> in HTML, which were intended as semantic elements for their presentational counterparts \<i\> and \<b\>. Sometimes, emphasis is represented differently, e.g. by colors, small capitals, underlines, letter spacing or typeface changes. There are other phrases that are presented in italic or bold type according to traditional Western typography – for…

I think it has also been mentioned elsewhere.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/beyond-markdown/2787)._