I guess the lack of comments could be interpreted as uneasy silence considering TFA is about justifying the bureaucratics of a "process" that never comes to an

I guess the lack of comments could be interpreted as uneasy silence considering TFA is about justifying the bureaucratics of a "process" that never comes to an end, never produces a coherent final result, and puts sustained access to the digital information of two or more generations at risk. Maybe someone should tell W3C it's time to come to an end with CSS standardization (with only one and a half implementation left). If they feel like there's not much anything more to do after 25 years of job security by inventing a thousand microsyntaxes, maybe they could start cleaning up their mess and provide profiles and formal specifications for at least core CSS specs such that, you know, coming generations will want to even consider maintaining their stuff. The precious few attempts at a formal semantics for even basic CSS box layout are certainly discouraging: > Even for a seemingly simple language like [ours covering a fragment of the CSS box layout model], we see scenarios where constraints have a surprising or even undefined interpretation in the CSS standard and browser implementations [1] [1]: https://lmeyerov.github.io/projects/pbrowser/pubfiles/paper.pdf https://lmeyerov.github.io/projects/pbrowser/pubfiles/paper.... But maybe CSS is a lost cause at this point. I'm certainly more than open to a more formal (constraint-based or whatever) spec that covers significant portions of CSS (like GSS which seems abandoned however).