It seems that support tracking websites don't know what this is yet. MDN briefly notes it as an option for `display` but there is no other mention of it.

They mentioned tabbing and screen readers quite a few times.

I found the "jumping" ordering quite concerning but further down in the article they mention "tolerance" that seems to be a way to allow the layout to be more consistent in terms of ordering.

Moving this sort of stuff out of JavaScript and arcane hacks allows the browser rendering engines to optimize these common patterns. This is sorta the opposite of syntactic sugar. The syntactic sugar is the libraries that implemented these patterns without rendering support.

Shall we call it syntactic umami perhaps? Or syntactic lipids?

There is no winning, is there? Half of HN wants browsers to revert to document readers and the other half wants HTML and CSS to do what JS can. A small minority then insists that we should get rid of HTML and CSS entirely and start from scratch. The louder the ideas the further away the person is from actually using the tech. I personally would not have the patience for community management.

That said, CSS masonry looks solid.

While I like a Karl Pilkington quote as much as the next guy, I really do want this. I have one specific use case for this layout that's always felt a little bit painful to reach into js for. I can't wait for the day I can simplify that further into native CSS.

How was this masonry layout possible back in the 90s?

> HTML has become more and more bloated. How many methods do we need to do something that was possible back in the 90s?

This is incorrect. Lots of old stuff was removed or deprecated from the HTML5 specification; elements like `s`, `u` were repurposed from being presentational to semantic:

- acronym

- applet

- basefont

- big

- center

- dir

- font

- frame

- frameset

- isindex

- noframes

- s

- strike

- tt

- u

- xmp

- noembed

- plaintext

All these CSS upgrades have been meant to reduce the need for Javascript for all the things web devs do out there in the real world. It's a good thing.

You should tune out more of the ambient cynicism because it's ignorant and unhinged. People who don't follow any standards discussions, don't talk to web devs, don't read anything except headlines and who are only imitating the attitudes of whatever cynical, depressed social media bubble they fell into.

Psh, rocket science only has to contend with physics, which generally doesn't change much, if at all. The equations used to get humans to the moon didn't change because someone discovered you can send a specially crafted packet and escape the sandbox and steal money from everybody on the Internet.