I'm not sure why you expected an article called "Venting on CSS" to be terribly "informational." It's a rant, duh! That said, as a web designer, I too know the

I'm not sure why you expected an article called "Venting on CSS" to be terribly "informational." It's a rant, duh! That said, as a web designer, I too know the ins and outs of CSS, and how I can get it to do what I need it to. However, the fact that it can be hacked to do anything is not an argument against making it better and more intuitive. You seem to be saying that, since you know how to hack around the bugs, the fact that they're there doesn't really matter! This is not a matter of the fundamental complexity of a language like this, it's a matter of improving a kludgy way of doing things, and therefore lowering the barrier of entry so that my mom, little brother, and girlfriend can learn to code a website without having to know what "star-HTML" or "double-margin-bug" means, and I'm not really sure why you'd be against that. And yes, I know that it is being improved constantly, it's just painfully slow sometimes. And since I'm in rant mode now, one of the things I hate about CSS is the box model... the "correct" one, not the ie6 one. The idea that the "width" of an element is not actually it's total width on the page (including border and padding), but the width of the internal content constantly pisses me off. It may be a good idea in theory, but in reality, when you're laying things out, the width of the content area is almost always far less important than the total width, and I hate having to do arithmetic every time I change padding!