What's the argument here? That CSS doesn't suck because there's a self-serving snake oil industry publishing explainer articles about CSS which is at the same a

What's the argument here? That CSS doesn't suck because there's a self-serving snake oil industry publishing explainer articles about CSS which is at the same also pushing for ever more CSS complexity as the browser cartel is pulling up the ladder such that no browser can be coded from scratch, ever again? At best, CSS could have served as an experiment for collecting requirements for the "real" successor and replacement language. CSS does, in fact, suck big time. The yardstick never was arbitrary complexity. Do you really believe Gen Z+ has nothing better to do than to pick up the boomer shit that is CSS? CSS proponents are well advised to conduct a language review, return to CSS "levels" and/or device profiles or other means to break it down into manageable chunks that can actually serve as a basis for implementors. Or provide a formal semantics rather than a disorganized set of tenths of "modules" not really deserving of that term that are compiled into a pointless "snapshot" every two years or so. Or layer CSS functionality on top of primitive layouting/plugin capabilities such that newer parts of CSS can be provided as reference implementation in JavaScript on top (ie what the dormant Houdini API was attempting to do). Basically, anything to organize a project of the size of CSS when the criticism has been loud and clear for many years now. But W3C, Inc. does nothing of the sort, hinging on the CSS WG as literally the last bit of influence it has over the web, and apparently in financial dependency on Google as the sponsor to have an interest in weak standardization bodies - the only other sponsor being from China since last year?