I'd be content with making 2.0 really try to reflect "current
practice" and putting ICADD into 2.1, as long as we really kept 2.1
simple enough to reasonably expect most browsers to upgrade quickly.
Since IETF committees work by "rough consensus", I'd suggest a process
where only things for which there were "rough consensus" made it into
2.1, and other things got left for 3.0. Would it be reasonable for the
chair to conduct polls of the working group via email, and then to
report the results? I had in mind something simple, like:
================================================================
Which level should the following feature be in?
Reply for each one with one of: 2.0, 2.1, 3.0, beyond 3.0.
The feature will get added to the earliest version for which there is
consensus that it belongs there. The survey assumes that we reach
consensus on the details of feature, and that there are no features
that should be in one level but not a higher one.
1. ICADD extensions
2. <super> and <sub>
3. <input type=file> (I had to get this one in)
4. ­
5. tables