> And all you're responding with is invective.

This statement is mendacious, at best. I have explained that HTML has fuck-all to do with layout. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

Here, check out what the W3C has to say about it:

> Because HTML conveys meaning, rather than presentation, the same page can also be used by a small browser on a mobile phone, without any change to the page. ... But it goes further than just differences in screen size: the same page could equally be used by a blind user using a browser based around speech synthesis, which instead of displaying the page on a screen, reads the page to the user, e.g. using headphones. Instead of large text for the headings, the speech browser might use a different volume or a slower voice.

(Emphasis in the original.)

https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/dom.html#semantics-2

Also, check out the ACID series of specifications which require and always use CSS, because otherwise, there is no mandate on how a browser should display stuff.

And, just for completeness, here are a couple of quotes from Tim Berners-Lee:

> HTML should convey the structure of a hypertext document, but not details of its presentation. This was the only way to get it to display reasonably on any of a very wide variety of different screens and sizes of paper.

> The separation of presentation from structure is a fundamental principle of the Web. HTML documents represent the logical structure of the document; style sheets provide formatting instructions.

Now, I will grant you during the browser wars of the 90s when everybody was trying to get ahead, some layout elements were stupidly added to HTML, and copied by other browsers. But these came nowhere near close to being definitive layout descriptions, and since at least 1997, the W3C has advocated for separating content into HTML, and presentation into CSS.