<...>
BB> Actually, I was saying that it would be a good excuse to make a new standard.
BB> CSS was a good idea, but I believe its fallen short of its goal of separation
BB> of style and content because of things its lacking, and because is too
BB> complicated for the average person to work with because of all the box models
BB> and such.
<...>
BB> ** W3 could define higher-level style languages that are defined in terms of
BB> CSS and a browser could convert to CSS much like programming languages can be
BB> compiled to assembler **

Ok, your proposal is accepted and implemented.
What will we have:
     1) The same old browsers with their old bugs. Browsers what will
     have no support for a new language. We still had not got rid of
     NN4, when do you think IE5-6 will die?
     
     2) New browsers, which inevitably will have buggy support for a new
     language, and buggy support for CSS, support for all code written
     to support buggy old browsers, and support for html tag
     soup. Take <!DOCTYPE switching complexity cubed.

     Point 2) is absolutely necessary, because of all that content
     already in place.

More: I don't bite your point about about CSS "is too complicated for the average
person to work with". My take is: the very paradigm of separating
content and presentation is and will be very difficult to grasp for
the many of us. It requires a specific mind set, a specific way of
thinking. No language can solve that.

And I do not see, how making CSS like programming language will make it
easier to understand. Sure it will be easier for _programmers_, that's
it.

BB>As we know, IE and Mozilla and many other software programs use CSS for layout
BB>of their user-interface. CSS paired with something like XUL seems to handle all
BB>they need.

AFAIK, IE does not use nothing like that. There were some talk about
XAML, anyone saw it working? In fact, the only apps I know using this
approach are those based on XUL.

Regards,
Rimantas