[jeroenhd]

I've watched videos about implementing CSS fixes in Ladybird (https://www.youtube.com/@awesomekling) and whenever the web specs get pulled up, I find them pretty clear most of the time. There's a lot of context required if you want to read the details about one specific thing, but all the necessary context is usually linked and readily available if you need it.

That complexity does lead to bugs (and bugs in Chrome can become part of the de-facto standard if the Chrome devs don't fix the bug fast enough) but the spec itself seems quite complete in most areas. In the few areas that are underspecified, simply seeing what other browsers do usually fixes the problem as there's usually an overlap in behaviour between at least two out of three remaining browser render engines.

The basic algorithms and rendering steps are all laid out pretty well in the spec. Even Quirks Mode has a standard (https://quirks.spec.whatwg.org/), though that's far from complete as every browser has its own compatibility quirks because of browser detection and branded CSS properties.

I know CSS documentation used to be awful, but the current version of the WHATWG spec is quite readable in my opinion and doesn't leave as much room for confusion anymore.

[andrewmcwatters]

WHATWG doesn't control the box model specification or layout. There is officially no CSS processing model. The specifications are detailed implicitly.