[jdowdell]

Less "scare quotes", more recognition of the nominalization being used.

Much of the WhatWG evangelism tries to portray these proposals as a done deal, using phrases like "the HTML 5 standard". But none of us today know how that process will eventually turn out.

The browser vendors within the WhatWG have been trying to define a multimedia engine for years... phrase "HTML5" first got on my radar four years ago: http://weblogs.macromedia.com/jd/archives/2005/06/html5.html

The W3C has bought in to the WhatWG's work, but there's much ambivalence too, particularly as it attempts to rewrite existing Standards and Recommendations (URLs, accessibility), and how editorial control is so focused in so few hands. Hard to say at this point how it will all turn out. Bottom line, what we conveniently call "HTML5" here is not necessarily what a future "HTML 5.0 Recommendation" may be. (Or, more tersely, "don't jump the gun. ;-)

By the way, who are you? I remember researching the handle "johnnybgoode" a year or two ago, but this Hacker News account is recent. It's funny to see people arguing about how "open" they are when they keep their identities hidden... attaching your reputation to your opinions raises their value. You can hide if you wish, but why not open up...?

[johnnybgoode]

I wasn't using this handle anywhere at that time, so you're thinking of someone else. What does this have to do with Adobe working to oppose an open web?

You're trying to emphasize the uncertainties of HTML5; I get it. They'll be worked out. We already know the features that are coming. What then?