I remember another thread about this here before that they were saying <b> is better than <strong> but i dont remember about <i> and <cite>
The first step is to read the specs. A summary would go like this: b and i; typographic elements. They have no semantic or structural value. That's why they're out of favor. There are better, if more verbose ways to do typographics. Examples include the use of bold text for book or periodical titles, and italics for article titles. strong and em: voice elements. These have semantic values. em indicates added stress. In graphical browsers, it's usually indicated with italic font styles. In screen readers, the voice might be raised a bit. ex.: "We were going, but something came up." strong indicates, um, strong emphasis, usually in a bold font weight. Screen readers might add clipping or a more staccato voicing. ex.: "you wil not stay out after curfew, young lady." cite: a citation. While usually rendered in italics, that's just convention. Use it to indicate the source. ex.: <blockquote cite="http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/singlehtml.htm"> <p>Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.</p> <cite>Benjamin Franklin, attributed</cite> </blockquote> Code (markup): Note that the attribute, "cite" contains a url pointing to the source of the quote, while the element, "cite" names the source of the quote. It can contain a link, if desired. Does that help? cheers, gary