Hello

What I'm just wondering: isn't <small> a non-semantic tag like <b> and <i>?

Yes it is.

No it isn't. (SCNR)

Ohh doch: Yes it is.

The continuance of these elements in the standards may be reasonable, but their non semanticness stays as a fact.

In most cases results of [some code] will look very similar at the client, but the HTML is simply larger.

The separation between structure (HTML) and layout (CSS) may cause a larger source code (HTML and CSS) in consequence, but both codes are maintanable in a better way.

A nice historical overview by Tim Tepaße at Jeena's Blog is based on his post in the SELFHTML-Forum in 2005. Great to read (sorry folks, German only).

truly nice

... but what does he say? he spokes about the history (HTML 2, 3.2, 4, XHTML 1) and about a overhauled future (XHTML 1.1, XHTML 2 vs. HTML 5). This future is not only overhauled, it is far far away from a satisfying implementation in the browsers (something similar with CSS 3, but that's another story).

Tschö, Auge