The 'standards that matter are the ones that are used' attitude is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place (Microsoft up front with their 'extensi

The 'standards that matter are the ones that are used' attitude is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place (Microsoft up front with their 'extensions'). The "standards will be written as they will be implemented by the browser manufacturers" is exactly the approach that the whatwg has taken on html5: After an inordinate amount of discussions, both in public and privately, on the situation regarding codecs for <video> and <audio> in HTML5, I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that there is no suitable codec that all vendors are willing to implement and ship. I'm all for waiting for the dust to settle and then refactoring using whatever the standards body decides, even if that would be against my personal preference. Which is exactly the approach i said I was taking. And despite the tone of the tone of your post, I dont seem to recall saying that I was going to continue using rev in html5 even though it was removed from the (draft) spec. I will continue to use it with html4, though.