And Drew himself answered you at the time on points made to your comment, that is things you said shouldn't be included that should and others you said were incorrectly included but were instead excluded in first place.
Those replies are handwavy and offer no convincing defence at all. In just a few minutes I was able to reduce the 1,217 URLs to 434 by simply excluding outdated or non-applicable stuff. That's about a third and includes some pretty large documents, and that's just with a quick check. The list is unambiguously categorically wrong and anyone who seriously looks at it and comes to a different conclusion is suffering from serious confirmation bias.
Whether the web is "too complex" is a different matter and open to interpretation as "too complex" is subjective. But the data very wrong and therefore the article is wrong. A "correct" conclusion with faulty arguments is just as worthless as an incorrect conclusion: any possible solution depends on a correct understanding of the situation. "Global warming happens because of pornography, therefore we must ban pornography" is just as useless as "global warming is a fake fraud" even though the conclusion of the first is correct.
Why not post this list for the rest of us to see (and check) then? But beforehand those "outdated" stuff (such as your HTML 3.1 example) may still be applicable and excluding them means your approach is incorrect right off the bat.
The HTML 3.1 specification is essentially irrelevant for implementing a modern browser; and you certainly don't need HTML 5.0, and, HTML 5.1, and HTML 5.2, and HTML 5.3, and, HTML 4.0, and, HTML 4.01, and, HTML 3.2, and, XHTML 1.0, and, XHTML 1.1, and, XHTML 2. These are large documents; possibly the largest in the set.
It takes a minute to spot-check; some specific examples were provided in the previous thread. I don't have the list any more and can't be bothered to recreate it; what value is there if you can just check Drew's list – which is really not that hard? I also have no idea how correct it is, exactly; I suspect the actual number would be even lower still.
And Drew himself answered you at the time on points made to your comment, that is things you said shouldn't be included that should and others you said were incorrectly included but were instead excluded in first place.