No, these are the kind of people who are deliberating on the best syntax to support millions of projects using CSS for the next 30 years. They have to factor in backwards compatibility, extensibility, performance, security, accessibility, responsiveness, and lots of other NFRs.

Once it’s out there, it has to be supported for a long time. It’s worth deliberating to get right. Nobody will die because they took their time.

Kinda? People have been working with their preferred syntax for oh, the last 10 years or so?

It’s scss.

No point in making a poll with an answer that’s already decided.

They mention in the post this has issues because browsers don’t have a build step in the same way Sass has. What’s your solution for that?

Support look ahead to some limit, then fail that css resource, with an error message that is more verbose in the dev console.

One of the goals for the web in general is to not impose the burden for that kind of strictness onto users. It's why we reversed course away from XHTML, which would refuse to render a page if the markup was incorrect.

Put another way: inconveniencing developers is preferable to inconveniencing users.

I like this idea. Could even bake a warning into VSCode.

Sounds like a good idea. Are you able to suggest it to them?

scss avoids a lot of problems because it's a preprocessor

This is just css. No one's going to die.