W3C is partly to blame for the situation. They don't bother to complete their spec work anymore - W3C HTML5.3 is officially at CR status, but hasn't be worked o

W3C is partly to blame for the situation. They don't bother to complete their spec work anymore - W3C HTML5.3 is officially at CR status, but hasn't be worked on since october, and SVG 2, which has been reduced basically to include SVG 1.2's vectorEffect=nonScalingStroke into SVG 1.1, and remove SVG 1.1 features that were never supported by browsers anyway, looks even less like it'll ever be completed. At the same time W3C's CSS WG churns out specs (subgrid, trigonometric functions, etc.), adding to the infeasability to code a browser from scratch ever again. If they want to contribute, they could do a lot of things: publish a reduced, rational profile of HTML (and in particular CSS) to give developers a usable target specification, rather than a bunch of isolated specs at various degrees of completion. They could also publish "real" specs with formal semantics and grammars, rather than the prose they publish now, which doesn't know if it wants to be an authoring or browser implementation guide. They could also create a browser from scratch in a formally verifiable language. They could do more lobbying. Or they could disband, to show the world that the public doesn't sit at the table when FAANG decides about the future of human communication. As it is, the web is becoming a net-negative, a medium for mass propaganda and censorship, an overly complicated turd leading into monopolies, and a place where creators don't get their share. W3C needs to demonstrate the actual value of the web to society, not naively appeal to idealists with their futile "save the web" campaigning. The web is a means to an end, and failing, not an end in itself.