[MBCook]

Isn’t CSS, like so many things, limited by backwards compatibility? They can’t clean slate it and call it CSS 4, no one would bother.

Everything they do has to work with the old stuff, or be very explicit that you’re changing the rules (like adding “display: flex”).

I suspect there is also a fair amount of “this is what everyone did so try not to break it” in there too, much like HTML.

I’m not sure anyone could make a clean spec under those circumstances.

[Dalewyn]

No, backwards compatibility is the responsibility of the browser, a la quirks mode[1][2] in ye olde days.

HTML6 or CSS4 could have a fresh, clean start and there's nothing preventing that.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirks_mode

[2]: https://www.quirksmode.org/css/quirksmode.html

[tannhaeuser]

What's preventing that is the large installed base of sites on the 'net. Quite possibly, the majority of web content has already been created (1), and it's getting worse as old sites are shut down.

Also, Safari is a thing (and personally I prefer FF for webdev, though Moz is certainly working hard to turn me away).

(1) those worth reading anyway, rather than generated content

[madeofpalk]

What would be the point of that if no browser would support it?

See also, https://wiki.csswg.org/faq#versioning-css-fixing-design-mist...

[Dalewyn]

I'm not sure what you're getting at?

The browser landscape today is composed of practically just one browser: Chrome. It is easier than ever to get browsers (read: Chrome) to implement different rendering schemes based on identifiers or descriptors provided by web devs.

Supporting the latest and greatest is a great marketing ploy, browsers (read: Chrome) are incentivized to support them. Browsers that don't will be forced to support them lest they become even further irrelevant.

Quirks Mode happened, Quirks Mode V2 can happen.

[madeofpalk]

I think it is a very bad idea for a single browser vendor to deliberately subvert standards process and attempt to steamroll the web with their own proprietary tech!

[Dalewyn]

You're still not getting it. When there's only one browser to care about, it's easy to get it to support the latest and greatest standard.

W3C comes out with HTML6? Not supporting that would be terrible marketing, especially if other then-irrelevant browsers adopt it.

[tannhaeuser]

> W3C comes out with HTML6?

W3C's hasn't come out with anything HTML for a long time now. What we're calling HTML5 is spec'd by a Google-financed group of individuals (but mostly Chrome devs) collaborating at github.com/whatwg.

The last WHATWG HTML revision W3C has put into recommendation status is WHATWG HTML review draft published January, 2020. Last year's review draft was rejected due to privacy concerns, and also due to long standing issues with HTML5's so-called outlining algorithm ie the spec's written interpretation of heading levels for landmarks in navigation as a left-over from back when Ian Hickson was editor which didn't meet with the reality of what assistive technologies are actually doing. Meanwhile, the WHATWG spec has been edited (by a long-term W3C efitor) but no new consensus for a new W3C HTML recommendation has been achieved [1].

[1]: https://sgmljs.net/blog/blog2303.html

[madeofpalk]

No I get it, but it strongly disagree.

I care about more than one browser.