Further into the comments, it is acknowledged that HTML + CSS is, in fact, not Turing Complete and that the original premise was incorrect.
I want to also add that HTML lacks a fundamental feature of programming languages: means of abstraction. Fortunately, modern software allows us to not have to program directly in HTML and CSS and can abstract the ugly away, programming in languages that are more maintainable than raw HTML. But we have had that for decades; I do not understand the need to legitimize HTML "programming". It might be a misunderstanding of what is actually producing the HTML data.
Further into the comments, it is acknowledged that HTML + CSS is, in fact, not Turing Complete and that the original premise was incorrect.
There is some discussion over what Turing complete means (including a guy confusing complexity with computability and saying that the notion of Turing completeness is nonsense), but no universal acknowledgement of that sort.
Xurinos|15 years ago
I want to also add that HTML lacks a fundamental feature of programming languages: means of abstraction. Fortunately, modern software allows us to not have to program directly in HTML and CSS and can abstract the ugly away, programming in languages that are more maintainable than raw HTML. But we have had that for decades; I do not understand the need to legitimize HTML "programming". It might be a misunderstanding of what is actually producing the HTML data.
sid0|15 years ago
There is some discussion over what Turing complete means (including a guy confusing complexity with computability and saying that the notion of Turing completeness is nonsense), but no universal acknowledgement of that sort.