> No, CSS is more complex than PostScript because it was designed by a bickering committee and competing companies over a long period of time, and nailed onto t

> No, CSS is more complex than PostScript because it was designed by a bickering committee and competing companies over a long period of time, and nailed onto the side on HTML as an afterthought of a shotgun wedding. That is not really an argument, that is just en emotional outpouring. I haven't seen anyone propose a simpler solution which solves the same real-world problems. But you can easily create a simpler solution if you ignore the problems of different device dimensions, accessibility etc. Anyway, CSS itself is not the issue. Even before CSS, the browsers used a layout model which was adaptive to different viewport dimensions and text scalings. This layout model is formalized in CSS as "normal flow", but the model itself predates the CSS spec. CSS now allows you to override these defaults in various ways so you can create a layout with fixed dimensions. But by default it is adaptive. In PostScript you need to explicitly write code to make the layout adaptive. If you want it to be as adaptive as HTML is by default, you will end up implementing something of similar complexity to a HTML rendering engine in each page (never mind issues with search engine indexing, accessibility and so on) - or you will bundle an adaptive rending library, in which case we are back to square one - a browser rending engine. HTML + CSS may be "bad" and "ugly" but have the great advantage that it actually works in the real world. Ugly things that work is always going to beat elegant things that doesn't work.