> Wrong! CSS is in fact a turing-complete language. :) I know it sounds weird, but it's true. Turing-completeness can be formally proved for CSS.
Where's the proof?
I am aware of a supposed proof that CSS3+HTML5 is Turing complete (but it relies on specified user interactions that aren't part of the defined execution of semantics of either language), but I've never heard of one CSS itself.
I didn't mean that it can be proof to CSS independently of HTML of course. And I suppose this requirement is obvious at least because CSS is not executable without HTML at all.
Anyway it seems you are quite familiar with the topic, and I believe you heard all the recent buzz around rule110 etc. But a lot of people don't know about this interesting fact yet.
Wrong! CSS is in fact a turing-complete language. :) I know it sounds weird, but it's true. Turing-completeness can be formally proved for CSS.