There are two main types of questions I would like to be able to ask here: 1. I am building something on the web; how do I do X? 2. I am a consumer of a web site and need to be able to adjust my experience; how do I do this userscript/CSS override/browser extension to solve my problem? I see these as related even though they're from different "sides"; if, for example, someone in #1 did accessibility differently then the question in #2 might not arise, but we live in an imperfect and ever-changing world. #2 runs the risk of veering into general browser questions (how do I do such-and-such in Opera?), so we should decide early on if we're ok with general browser questions. The site is currently called "Web", not "Web Development", so I think there's justification for some amount of "consumer" content, but I don't know how much is fine and how much is too much.
Whatever other nuances of scope we decide on, I think we should make a strong distinction between server-side and client-side, and keep everything server-side off topic here. So PHP, ASP, apache, nginx etc should be out of scope. We probably need a *webserver*.*ta* for those.
One potentially grey area would be requests for **recommendations**, typically for software, but they could also be for web technologies to meet a particular use-case. (In the SE network, SoftwareRecs allows for e.g. `[cms]` requests for particular scenarios.) Such questions frequently shade off toward "opinion based", unless the question is framed with particular care. I think my personal preference at *this* moment would be to regard sharply-written requests for recommendations as **on-topic**. Almost inevitably, especially as the community grows, such questions will appear, and they can be valuable. Vague or blatantly opinion-based questions could be edited into shape, or refined *via* the integrated chat system, or consigned to oblivion if beyond retrieval. *P.s. I assume we want to populate this Q&A with a variety of responses, some of which will be (even intentionally) "bad" in order to describe boundaries (inclusion and exclusion) effectively.*