I saw yet another “CSS is a massively bloated mess” whine and I’m like. My dude. My brother in Chromium. It is trying as hard as it can to express the totality of visual presentation and layout design and typography and animation and digital interactivity and a few other things in a human-readable text format. It’s not bloated, it’s fantastically ambitious. Its reach is greater than most of us can hope to grasp. Put some *respect* on its *name*.

@Meyerweb

This goal is admirable, but it also seems unachievable.

I wonder if it would've been better to just let web pages supply their own layout code and shaders. It'd slow down page loading, but it would also make browsers much smaller and simpler while removing the limits on what web designers can do.

@argv_minus_one If that is what you think CSS is for, you have fundamentally misunderstood it.

@ahltorp

Perhaps I have. Could you elaborate?

@argv_minus_one One ord elaboration: accessibility

@ahltorp

What about it?

I'm not familiar, but I was under the impression that accessibility tools look at the DOM, not the visual layout/appearance. Am I mistaken?

@argv_minus_one Accessibility is more than special tools parsing the DOM and presenting it on a braille display or as speech.

Accessibility is choosing your own font size. It’s providing your own style sheet that controls the layout. It’s being able to choose light and dark mode. It’s being able to choose high contrast. And much much more.

Making web sites provide a rendering engine themselves would be a big step backwards. But you know that <canvas> is available if you really want that?

@ahltorp

Good points. I generally think of CSS as how web page authors control the appearance of the page, but I had forgotten that users use it too.