If by "mumbles a bit" you mean not supporting an unsupported and defunct proposed "standard" that doesn't work in practice and is only implemented in IE, then yeah.
It's a W3C recommendation. Scare quotes around the word standard are unnecessary, since a vast number of current web standards came out of W3C processes.
Or is it not 'standards-compliant' when WebKit implements features that only WebKit has, even if they're from W3C standards?
It's not really much of a standard if no one references it in the real world.
And the W3C standards are most successful when they document how technology is already being used in the wild. Proscriptive web standards handed down from on high have historically not fared well. Plenty of W3C standards are duds.
Why does everyone always assume quotes are used as scare quotes? I quoted "standard" because it's not a standard. If the standards body no longer exists and no one follows the standard, it's not a standard.
"Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to indicate that it does not signify its literal or conventional meaning."
"If scare quotes are enclosing a word or phrase that does not represent a quotation from another source they may simply serve to alert the reader that the word or phrase is used in an unusual, special, or non-standard way or should be understood to include caveats to the conventional meaning."
I would have thought the "proposed" and "defunct" clauses would indicate that "standard" was in name only. The term "scare quotes" indicates to the reader that the writer is intending to mislead or persuade. I don't agree that my usage constitutes what is generally accepted as scare quotes, but even if you disagree, the point still stands. IE is stomping its feet complaining that Google isn't supporting a standard that only IE supports (when even the standards body doesn't support it anymore).
Come up with a better standard, then complain when Google breaks it. Otherwise it's just another example of Google being "evil" (that's scare quotes).
After a successful Last Call, the P3P Working Group decided to publish the P3P 1.1 Specification as a Working Group Note to give P3P 1.1 a provisionally final state.
The P3P Specification Working Group took this step as there was insufficient support from current Browser implementers for the implementation of P3P 1.1. The P3P 1.1 Working Group Note contains all changes from the P3P 1.1 Last Call. The Group thinks that P3P 1.1 is now ready for implementation. It is not excluded that W3C will push P3P 1.1 until Recommendation if there is sufficient support for implementation.
This is the last update from the group that was posted in 2006. It's never been pushed by the W3C, and the browser creators never implemented it.
After a successful Last Call, the P3P Working Group decided to publish the P3P 1.1 Specification as a Working Group Note to give P3P 1.1 a provisionally final state. The P3P Specification Working Group took this step as there was insufficient support from current Browser implementers for the implementation of P3P 1.1. The P3P 1.1 Working Group Note contains all changes from the P3P 1.1 Last Call. The Group thinks that P3P 1.1 is now ready for implementation. It is not excluded that W3C will push P3P 1.1 until Recommendation if there is sufficient support for implementation.
This is the last update from the group that was posted in 2006. It's never been pushed by the W3C, and the browser creators never implemented it.
Or is it not 'standards-compliant' when WebKit implements features that only WebKit has, even if they're from W3C standards?