As already noted in other comments, the almost harmless technological subject matter underlines a genuinely fascist mindset (my idea is new, new ideas are good, unifying totalitarian new ideas are particularly good, old ideas are bad, fuck everyone else) and a fascist style (emphatic and disparaging language, strawman examples, proud and deliberate ignorance, loud but weak arguments).

Since this fascist approach to web design seems entirely due to naive enthusiasm rather than to the author being fascist about serious matters, it becomes a strong example of the temptation of being close-minded in order to move fast and break things.

Some citations:

> It is of utmost importance that the web should always be considered as one concept, one technology and one language, as this is the only way to avoid these unnecessary issues and to get clarity in the pursuit of substantial improvements.

> This proposal uses the scientific method as a guiding principle to analyze the current, mostly arbitrary rules of the three main web languages and reestablish them objectively and collectively. The more we can govern our principles and specifications by facts and logic rather than consensus, the simpler and easier it gets to improve upon them and to adopt them by everyone else.

> We need to realize that the approach to consider every single web page as a "document" rather than an "application", does not work anymore.

> Why do we allow innerHTML to branch out uncontrollably, but limit style to only one extra level? And if they are both branching, then why do they look so different?

> If we detach content and structure entirely, it becomes clear how damaging and limiting the architecture of the web has become. HTML is simply not suitable to remain the backbone of the web, this very concept is a logical contradiction (a metadata that has its own metadata). And this is not just something that limits us today, it will also undermine all future efforts to develop new ideas as well.

> Objects would allow an unprecedented level of consistency and simplicity across all major web technologies all the way from databases to the last bit of front end styling. But not only would this system be more uniform, it would also keep and even elevate the concept of separating the content, structure, styling and interactivity. Developers could segregate their objects into different files beyond this classification and create new grouping logic based on their needs. Some objects might be easier to work with if the styling or interactivity is already there, others might not require them at all.

> Let's imagine for a second that we are limited to only two position modes: absolute and fixed. No document flow, no Flexbox, nothing else, just these two. Any object we would want to put on screen would be equal in terms of positioning, but they would carry different content, just like in modern design softwares.

> This way we could build virtually anything, keeping everything fully responsive but at the same time simple and organized. Instead of holding back JavaScript and mimicking its functionality with CSS, we could just unleash it entirely and see the magic unfold.

> The Grand Unification is a big leap but a necessary one. HTML and CSS have reached its limits, developing them any further does not yield any additional benefit but demands more and more time and resources.

> HTML does a pretty bad job at categorizing its individual building blocks. In HTML we have content, normal tags, self-closing tags, elements and nodes but then we parse them all into the DOM that is made out of objects.

> Appendix 2 - Things that don't make any sense in CSS