The team’s position for rejecting this seems reasonable, but then you look at the actual PR and you see that’s one extra line of html on the error pages and I can’t help but feel like it wasn’t a big deal to accept this.

I can understand the reasoning, but I would have weighed the significant benefit over the little “complexity”/content increase.

The color inversion is a significant effect. It doesn’t change anything for those that use their own error pages, but significantly improves the situation for people who land on these pages and are bothered by light mode.

/edit: Their PR close comment was super short (non-telling), but they later commented with some reasonable reasoning that better describes their point of view and considerations.

Waaaait - I recently implemented a simple dark mode for a simple page and thought color-scheme declares intent/support not influence how it is being rendered. I thought I still had to define dark coloring.

I just checked and to my surprise the browser indeed serves different default/root coloring when dark color scheme is declared [as well]. :O This means I can simplify my CSS.

I must have been misled when skimming by “specifies compatibility” and “Component authors must use the prefers-color-scheme media feature to support the color schemes on the rest of the elements.” missing the browser behavior change description.

Honestly, the only person using my sites is me, and I have dark reader anyway lol

I agree with this decision. Don’t make error pages more complicated than they are.

As if I needed another reason to avoid nginx.

Seems like a very simple, lightweight and elegant solution to keeping the engine up to modern standards. If they were serious about keeping complexity out they wouldn’t have such garbage site configuration.