Sigh, I sound about 30 years older than I am. However,
having been involved in real standardisation where we
strive to create something stable and reusable, these types
of examples make HTML 5 look a melange of disparate and
barely interoperable concepts.
No, you just sound like someone who has no idea how HTML5 spec is developed and how implementations of it find their
ways to browsers.
Or would you prefer XHTML2 way: all theory, nothing in the real world ever?
So the "throw it at the wall and see what sticks" strategy is the new "standards" vogue? As I tried to say, isn't this what we got up in arms against Microsoft for? Its a minor improvement as people tend to at least write up the new "standards", but the problem with IE wasn't that their additions were unreplicable - it was that they were not replicated.
Also, your example is a false dichotomy. I can be concerned about the "standardisation" process usage I'm seeing without demanding a glacial and purely theoretic process.
