When will the "standards compliant" version be available?

Greetings,
I want to preface my question with a big thanks for all the work contributed to this project.
Now on to my complaint/question. ;)

After experimenting with the "builder", I opted to install the atck theme to see how the
"bare bones" theme rendered in Drupal, and my Browser (current Seamonkey). My browser
immediately rejected much of the css. So I was left with a completely "undressed" theme.
Further investigation reveals that the style.css (separate download) isn't "standards based".
I struggle with finding a "balance" for support of standards-challanged browsers. But my method
loads nonstandard css, or hacks conditionally based on the browser requesting the page. This
has been made pretty simple with IE's conditional comments - something you've employed.
But there are a couple that I think somehow messed up when added to the style.css.
I'll post them here:

/* For Opera */
		@media all and (min-width: 0px) {
				.tidy .gr,
				.untidy .tidy .gr {
					margin-bottom: 0;padding: 0;
					}
				.tidy gr:after,
				.untidy .tidy gr:after {
					background : inherit ;
					content : ' ' ;
					display : block ;
					margin-bottom : -1000px ;
					padding-bottom : 1000px ;
				}
			}
		/*	end equal column height fix	*/

and

/*~	.untidy	over-write equal column heights for child layouts \*/
			.untidy .layout {
				overflow: visible;
				}
			.untidy .gr {
				margin-bottom: 0 ! important;
				padding-bottom: 0 ! important;
				}
			/* For Opera */
			@media all and (min-width: 0px) {
				.tidy gr:after {
					display : inline ;
					margin-bottom : 0 ;
					padding-bottom : 0 ;
				}
			}

Note also the assertions of: ! important
should be in the form of: !important
note the space between the exclamation point and the word important which shouldn't have been there.

Anyway, just hoping you might share corrections for the two code blocks I've posted here.
Also, thanks again for all the hard work you've done (and shared) so far! :)

--Chuck