I think you're misinformed by what "the rules" are.
W3C standards are not, in fact, an innovation speed limit. Vendors are free to implement whatever they'd like.
The only way a vendor should be encumbered by the W3C is that if they choose to implement a feature, they should also support the W3C incarnation of that feature. That's it, full stop.
The problem with IE6 isn't that it did extra things. It's that it did a variety of things (some extra, some not) badly, and then Microsoft refused to bring it into compliance. That's not a problem we have with Webkit. So what are you saying when you try to tar Webkit with the IE brush? How familiar are you with the development process behind Webkit?
Do you have something to say about vendor prefixes? That's what we're talking about. I'm not particularly concerned about what particular blue ribbons we affix to the W3C. They're great. Now what?
These links [1][2] provide some reasoning behind not using vendor extensions. The second is referenced in the article we're commenting on. I find it difficult to understand why much vitriol needs to be expended.
That QuirksMode article you posted includes an update acknowledging that it's wrong. I think the stance in the newer post it links to is more reasonable, though I'm still not sure it's all the way there.
The article provides a summary of potential problems with vendor prefixes, which still stands.
The author acknowledged that his suggested solution was wrong. See the redux [1] (which is actually mentioned in the article) for alternative solutions.
My main concern is that the dcurt.is article misses the point entirely.
W3C standards are not, in fact, an innovation speed limit. Vendors are free to implement whatever they'd like.
The only way a vendor should be encumbered by the W3C is that if they choose to implement a feature, they should also support the W3C incarnation of that feature. That's it, full stop.
The problem with IE6 isn't that it did extra things. It's that it did a variety of things (some extra, some not) badly, and then Microsoft refused to bring it into compliance. That's not a problem we have with Webkit. So what are you saying when you try to tar Webkit with the IE brush? How familiar are you with the development process behind Webkit?