[NathanKP]

I'd rather have our current lighter, generic HTML spec that can be enhanced by running code in JS than a heavy HTML spec that tries to do everything in pure HTML/CSS just so that way we can avoid running JS by default.

The more complicated HTML/CSS gets the less efficient it will be and the harder it will be to get all the browsers to maintain compatibility with each other.

In a way the current scenario where a lighter, shallower HTML and CSS are enhanced by custom code in the form of JS is better for the ecosystem because it allows creative freedom in development without overloading the core engine with cruft.

If you choose to do so you can create a bloated abomination of an HTML page powered by tens of thousands of lines of JS, but since the core engine itself is very light it is also possible to make a clean and simple page that is extremely light and which uses no JS at all.

On the other hand baking lots of functionality into the core engine would force everyone to experience the bloat and cruft, even if you were trying to make a clean and simple website.