> Or maybe the ability to imagine the fate of CSS if it wasn't backwards compatible with the HTML layout model :)
You seem to be misinterpreting my arguments -- I'll assume not deliberately. They could have easily provided the same facilities for backwards compatibility of table behavior while also providing clearly-named and usable methods for doing things as basic as centering.
Is your position that CSS is a thoughtfully, well-designed system for presentation, and that the complaints of 95% of professionals web developers are the result of their own misunderstanding of it? Can you imagine taking such a position on user complaints as the CTO of a private software company?
CSS does provide both - the table model from CSS2 provides parity with HTML tables, the flexbox model in CSS3 provides an easy way to center blocks and other nice flexible layout features.
I do believe most complaints about CSS is really complaints about missing and buggy implementations in browsers. For example for years I have seen people complain that CSS is not as powerful and simple as html tables, when the issue really was that Internet Explorer didn't support the display:table properties from CSS2, which meant you either had to use hacks with floats (which was never designed for this) or use html tables. This gave CSS a bad rep, when it really was IE that was to blame.
You seem to be misinterpreting my arguments -- I'll assume not deliberately. They could have easily provided the same facilities for backwards compatibility of table behavior while also providing clearly-named and usable methods for doing things as basic as centering.
Is your position that CSS is a thoughtfully, well-designed system for presentation, and that the complaints of 95% of professionals web developers are the result of their own misunderstanding of it? Can you imagine taking such a position on user complaints as the CTO of a private software company?