Who said I wouldn't use it?
That was a general comment not intended to be directed at you personally.
CSS is supported by HTML 4.0. So natively, you don't need anything extra, all you need is the <style> tag. In fact you can design entire 3-column, 2-column, or quad layouts just with the <style> tag, classes, ID's, and <div> tags. If a user knows how to do that, then good, if they don't then so what.
Exactly, but where do you suggest to place the rules? Actually, hold that thought, I'll get back to this later.
Your analogy of the icecream cone is wrong. They are getting icecream (its html "enabled" .. remember?)
Actually, I believe I hit it right on the head. Using basic HTML tags is hardly "sweet" since it's inferred their usage would be available (afterall, it's a basic webpage MOD). Anything beyond that would be the "bennie".
Taking away something that allows a much greater degree of layout and display control is frankly inhumane. "Because some won't use it" is hardly justification to scrap it since there are others who would take full advantage of it. Let's face it, one additional text area when adding/editing your layout won't throw off many.
Skip CSS directly for a second since there's a bigger picture.
You shouldn't have to introduce a seperate interface for something everybody is not going to use.
No, but there should be a seperate interface for different areas of the document
. If the blocks were renamed "head of the document" and "body of the document", this wouldn't be an issue. Per the first quote, the first block doesn't need to be just for CSS, rather any other allowed tags within the head