> "Source that this is just a side effect from other design decisions?"
The source would be Tim Berners-Lee's original 1989 proposal for a hypertext information system. He specifically wrote: "We should work toward a universal linked information system, in which generality and portability are more important than fancy graphics techniques and complex extra facilities."
These sentiments are also reflected in other technical documents such as RFC 1866. The intent is crystal clear.
> "Your browser sucked because it couldn't even support the full standard."
I think this is a common reaction from people who aren't old enough to remember a world before mega-complex browser platforms and non-portable websites came into being. My browser absolutely was standards compliant at the time, and it was expected that websites would be viewable without graphics.
Keep in mind: javascript had not yet been invented.
Again, HTML is specifically designed around portability, generality, and flexibility. This has been degraded by the rush of commercialization and related platform lock-in -- in large part due to things web 2.0. This is not a good thing.
> "They should. Websites describe what should be shown using HTML and CSS. "
I think you should read a bit deeper into the underpinnings of these standards you're referencing.
>We should work toward a universal linked information system, in which generality and portability are more important than fancy graphics techniques and complex extra facilities.
This would support the opinion that entire web sites should be protable as opposed to just a small subset.
Source that this is just a side effect from other design decisions?
>My web client made decisions about which parts to display and which parts to not
Your browser sucked because it couldn't even support the full standard.
>It's a loaded term because it implies that websites ought to have control over display
They should. Websites describe what should be shown using HTML and CSS.