See list here:
http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_reference.asp
like ,
,
,
Two reasons come to mind:
Because some people (not me, here is a primer about this opinion and here are the WHATWG FAQ about this) don't think of them as presentational. They argue, that <b>
has semantics of its own, for example, where <strong>
is not right and the text should be bold anyways (IMHO therefore we have <span>
)
Because HTML5 has a pragmatic and backwards compatible approach: What worked in HTML4 should work too in HTML5. They argue, that this is why XHTML2 died.
They have also redefined the meaning and semantics of several of these elements. They realized the need for an element that does something like <b>
and there was already an element, so they kept it, and preserved backwards compatibility, instead of introducing something new.
First have a look what WHATWG says about it (this is also mentioned in the answer to the related question cited above).
It is said (as I thought, too) that <strong> and <em> provide an emphasis when using a screen reader, but according to this article by Harry Roberts, it turns out that in practice screen readers don't accentuate text marked this way.
And last, read the spec about <b> (it's already mentioned in the FAQ in the first link, above):
The b element represents a span of text to be stylistically offset from the normal prose without conveying any extra importance, such as key words in a document abstract, product names in a review, or other spans of text whose typical typographic presentation is boldened.
and <i>:
The i element represents a span of text in an alternate voice or mood, or otherwise offset from the normal prose, such as a taxonomic designation, a technical term, an idiomatic phrase from another language, a thought, a ship name, or some other prose whose typical typographic presentation is italicized.
Likewise, have a look at <small>, <hr> and <br> (there are examples there, too.)