Gather round children, it's analogy time! First, some definitions:
- Wayland is a protocol to define the communication between a display server (the "compositor") and a client, i.e. an application though the actual communication is usually done by a toolkit like GTK or Qt.
- A Wayland Compositor is an implementation of a display server that (usually but not necessary) handles things like displaying stuff on screen and handling your input devices, among many other things. Common examples for Wayland Compositors are GNOME's mutter, KDE's KWin, weston, sway, etc.
And now for the definitions we need for our analogy:
- HTTP is a protocol to define the communication between a web server and a client (usually called the "browser")
- A Web Browser is an implementation that (sometimes but not usually) handles things like displaying web sites correctly, among many other things. Common examples for Web Browsers are Firefox, Chrome, Edge, Safari, etc. 
And now for the analogy:
The following complaints are technically correct but otherwise rather pointless to make:
- HTTP doesn't support CSS
- HTTP doesn't support adblocking
- HTTP doesn't render this or that website correctly
- Wayland doesn't support keyboard shortcuts
- Wayland doesn't support screen sharing
- Wayland doesn't render this or that application correctly
Likewise, saying "I don't like Wayland" is like saying "I don't like HTTP".The vast majority of users will have negative feelings towards the browser, not the transport protocol.
 Because they're implementations of a display server they can speak multiple protocols and some compositors can also be X11 window managers, much in the same way as you can switch between English and your native language(s).  Because they're implementations of a web browser they can speak multiple protocols and some browsers can also be FTP file managers, much in the same way as... you get the point