I'm not but I design websites.
The general public I think would find it relevant especially based on news media reporting. Why test each browser yourself when the W3C have tested them and certified those that meet a particular use standard. It's more likely to sway people on which browser _not_ to use IMO.
At the same time now you have a way to say "When I say HTML 5 I refer to these features, at least". Without a spec fixed in stone it is hard to say "I want to use a browser that does HTML 5".
Without fixed specs we are currently regressing to pre-2000 sites "optimized for" a certain browser; "Sorry, this site works only with Chrome" is a common sight on Show HN submissions, but also on sites for a more common audience. With the comeback of something that resemble a fixed spec, let's call it a snapshot spec, this situation may get better, or, at least, not get worse.
But it is my duty as a web developer to ensure the features i use will be available widely , i dont want to get trapped into this on that plateform , while other major browsers will never implement some "innovative" features.
So innovation if you want, but i care only about stability.
The WHATWG represents the Browser Vendors more directly and is committed to an ongoing ever-evolving HTML standard rather than fixed release numbers. They also tend towards the more pragmatic side of things. They are probably the ones to watch.
(This is based on my limited understanding. I'm happy to be corrected here)
So you're saying there are two groups claiming to have the canonical HTML spec now?
"The W3C violates its own process, lets HTML go to CR with 100+ bugs still active: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/buglist.cgi?query_format=adva...
(Regarding the process to move to Candidate Recommendation[2], which is what HTML5 just hit.)
[1] https://twitter.com/tabatkins/status/280825291620896770
[2] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#transitio...
W3C likes to have solid specs and therefore freezes it and gives it a name. Its nothing more than tagging a certain timepoint with a version number.
I prefer the living standard. However, giving it a version name makes it easier to comunicate about sometimes.
This blog posts makes it much clearer: http://blog.whatwg.org/html-and-html5
1.7.1 How to read this specification
This specification should be read like all other specifications. First, it should be read cover-to-cover, multiple times. Then, it should be read backwards at least once. Then it should be read by picking random sections from the contents list and following all the cross-references.
