I think the point stated is correct, but I don't remember having an html template that is interoperable and modify all the looks with just only css changes.
Yes, zengarden is known to me and for simple pages you may have template and css that are decoupable, but with standard websites it's futile to develop a html template without class declarations (with javascript and canvas and fonts, the thing just got worse :D) If only existed one standard way to interpret css rules and behaviours, and only one screen size, maybe we could have arrived to decouple structure from presentation completely. But we had to deal with IE back in the days, now with mobiles, etc,etc,etc. I know very little about css and I use frameworks to let my site look good. If I wanted it to look "cool", I'd surely go with my own styles. But I'm not a web designer. And spending time to find that one css rule that makes all browsers behave in the same way ... seems time wasted. Yes, less mixins are good, but ....I want to use "sidebar" and my css uses "sidebar-left": are we sure that my convention is better than the one on the framework itself (and when I'll have to change my css, will I retain that name at all)? Css frameworks are used all around the web and quite all of them have classes going around (960.gs, blueprint, yurb, ez, etc) so when you're deploying your html you must "follow" their conventions (if you want to use css frameworks at all). I'm sure I would spend more time on re-making my own css (and tweaks, copying styles around and assigning them according to my "naming convention") than adopting a new css framework and adjusting my html template to match the "class-naming conventions" of that framework. Additionally, if you don't write HTML by hand but you use some templating system, that change in "html structure" means practically no time at all. --
