[Chris_Newton]

I'd love to see a "Can-I-use" browser extension when looking at articles like this.

I agree, though what I would find really helpful is not just can-i-use but should-i-use, taking into account not only feature availability but also quality of implementation. Even if a feature is theoretically supported in all major browsers, it’s not much use for a production site or app if what you actually see on screen in at least one of those browsers looks terrible, for example because of bad anti-aliasing or colour handling or animation calculations. I’ve been building new UI/design systems from scratch for a couple of projects recently, and it’s amazing how often that still happens, even with popular CSS features used to implement relatively simple effects.

[nextaccountic]

caniuse.com reports whether something is too buggy to the point of being unusable in a different color, and has footnotes for whether something has some quirks/caveats but is otherwise usable

[Chris_Newton]

That’s true up to a point, but caniuse and I sometimes have different interpretations of what is too buggy to be usable. Rasterising vector formats and working with colour seem to be two common triggers for poor rendering, with extra chances for visible glitches if they are used in combination and a bonus if animation is involved as well.