[paulddraper]

Surely questioning the real world usefulness is not "toxic"?

CSS is already very complicated. Adding more options needs proportionally strong justification.

[Turing_Machine]

No, but basing capabilities solely on what they imagine "well-known websites" might want is.

[paulddraper]

And how would you do it sans imagination?

[Turing_Machine]

You misunderstand. I don't think that using "well-known websites" is a good metric in the first place.

That's a recipe for stagnation.

[paulhilbert]

I mean the actual point of the article is to ask everyone, not just "well-known" examples.

So it seems there were some reasonably forces in the discussion that align with my stance without the unnecessarily antagonistic (and rhetoric) primer I should've probably left out.

Seems like a good approach to widen the discussion and improve the design.