I have this nagging suspicion that this whole "responsive HTML" movement is driven largely by a desire for a layout that works on (a) an average desktop screen and (b) on an iPhone / smartphone. And so instead of designing two separate sites, let's design something that looks good on (a) and (b), and also has an intermediate state that we pass through when resizing the window between (a) to (b). Nobody would actually care for these intermediate states (because, frankly, who does routinely browse on a desktop at 500px in width?), but since we <i>can</i> generalize, let's do it. And also let's call it some fancy name and put some theory behind it.<p>Point being - I don't see a point in responsive layouts.<p>There are two extremes - the desktops and the small-screen mobile devices. These cover 99.9% of all users. Designing an uniform solution for both is not too alike to building a File I/O framework to hide the differences between reading from the local file and one on the FTP server. Sure it is nice, but why? It just conceals the important differences and creates whole bunch of new problems.