Rory: Aye, a friend’s now ensured I’ve now seen it in Camino (looks like Firefox, unsurprisingly) and Safari (looks like Opera: good!). I’ll post screenshots at some point.
Statto: I used to be firmly in the XHTML2 camp, but I’ve since been swayed to the HTML5 camp. It’s theoretically faster-to-parse and render, it’s backwards-compatible (extremely important on the web) and it provides more valuable features for the way the web is actually going, rather than the way it should be (which is what XHTML better caters towards). If you want XML compliance, you can always do what they’re calling XHTML5 (i.e. HTML5 with XML rules).
Plus, everybody who matters is backing HTML5, and almost nobody’s backing XHTML2. Beautiful and elegant though it is, we won’t see browser support for it for years and years, whereas browser support for HTML5 is on the horizon already. I know what I’ll be developing for next year.
Thanks for your comments, guys.