OK, thanks.

It’s not “one browser adds it, it stays”. It’s all judgement calls. Obviously if a browser with 80% market share implements something and everyone uses it, it’s different than if a browser with 0.8% market share implements something and nobody uses it.

Re your earlier comment: I don’t think we should remove the entire network connection section, as there is massive demand for two-way stateful connection. But that area certainly needs further work before it’s ready. I wish the WebAPI group would do a good job of taking that spec and running with it. So far they have not. (Indeed, both attempts at defining a network connection API in the W3C have been horrible failures.)

Anyway. At this point I’m not really sure what the complaint is. I think we’ve addressed all your concerns, or explained why they aren’t realistic. The parsing section will be prioritised. I’m not sure what else we can do for you.

That FAQ is still quite fuzzy. Removal of a feature rests on the authority of “we”, but it’s not clear who that is. I also don’t like the definition. If one browser implements it, it must stay? That sounds exactly like what I’m complaining about.

> This is about removal from the platform altogether,
> though, not about moving something to another spec

WHATWG is not the only venue available for standards work, so it does not define the whole platform. Thus it is possible to remove things from the HTML5 spec that aren’t HTML, without changing the Web as a whole.

http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#Is_there_a_process_for_bad_ideas_things_from_the_spec.3F

Note that all the IrDA and bluetooth stuff (which is no more than a section header right now — the sections themselves are empty) is marked as being considered for removal.

This is about removal from the platform altogether, though, not about moving something to another spec. The process for that is simply that someone has to volunteer to work on the spec and demonstrate that they will do a good job on a realistic timetable.

(And seriously — could you _please_ get the many other places to which you refer to standardise the flexbox spec? Mozilla has been looking for someone to do that literally since before Mozilla 0.6 came out, with no success. Since you know of all these people, it would be good to see them actually do something.)

I don’t have a problem with stuff like that. Let’s not forget that canvas is/was a proprietary Apple extension. But that’s small beans. If it’s ready, let’s include it.

flexbox may not be as important you think it is. I wish it was done, because I think it is cool too.

> Why are you waiting for me to do them

because you have already done a lot of the work, and done a good job.

> haven’t even touched that section of the spec in years

Then I am not sure what harm would come from moving it into cold storage on the wiki. What about the entire TCP section?