[zbaylin]

Some of them are definitely more "historic" than others.

For instance, #2 (<table>-based layouts) definitely shaped much of early-to-mid-2000s web design, and can be viewed as a precursor to flexbox/other modern layout engines.

Same with sIFR -- custom webfonts are totally taken for granted today largely because of "hacks" like this.

[wongarsu]

I strongly agree with table layouts being historic. A large reason we now have flexbox is because early CSS was really bad at replicating table-based layouts, so people didn't stop using then despite the drawbacks.

Same story with rounded corners, which were originally accomplished with tables and images. And a lot of the conventions for website navigation were established in table-based layouts

[chrismorgan]

I don’t know about others, but I hated sIFR. It was routinely deployed without sane fallback (so that if you didn’t have Flash, headings were broken, for example—it being common to deploy it on headings only, since it was overall so awful), it butchered performance, the rendering was ugly and often difficult to read, and it thwarted regular operations like text selection.