I pretty much agree with you, but just to clarify one point that you made: this was an issue in the W3C, not the WHATWG. The whole reason for the creation of t

I pretty much agree with you, but just to clarify one point that you made: this was an issue in the W3C, not the WHATWG. The whole reason for the creation of the WHATWG was that the W3C was getting absolutely nowhere with HTML standards (XHTML 2, anyone?) and the browser vendors that were actually still improving browsers and adding features decided to get together to create a separate standards body that would standardize on features that people actually want. Eventually, the W3C realized that WHATWG was stealing all of their thunder, and agreed to adopt the WHATWG Web Apps 1.0 spec as the basis for HTML5, and agreed to some concessions about a more open process and a somewhat different structure from the usual W3C body that heavily favors big corporations which can devote people full time to creating baroque standards instead of actually implementing anything. Sadly, it's looking like the W3C group is starting to devolve into the old behaviors that killed it in the first place, with confusing private lists, with decisions being made in face-to-face meetings and teleconferences that favor professional standards people instead of actual implementors and users. Luckily, the WHATWG still exists, and still retains the option of just going off and doing its own thing again if the W3C gets out of hand. I don't believe that it will come to that, but it can if it needs to. Just wanted to clarify, since the way you phrased your comment made it sound like this was a WHATWG issue, while in fact it was a W3C issue.