You may be thinking of the much-hated "Trusted Computing" initiative. "Trusted" here means that the JavaScript dev picks a sanitizing library they trust, not that Mozilla decides what software is trustworthy.

Nah, my issue isn't with users vs. Mozilla, but users vs. "JavaScript dev", specifically the difference of opinion on who should have final say on what gets executed and what doesn't.

We use base 24, actually, but since we truncate before concatenating, we behave as expected here, unlike Gecko/WebKit. Obviously, a different TC that depends on one selector having more class names than another ("c" in CSS 2.1 6.4.3) will fail in Opera; it passes in GeckKit. See attachment at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Aug/0493.h... for an illustration.

Oops, should be base 25, obvs.

I think there is still a long future for non-interactive/low-interactivity media. The original RFS acknowledged this. One project that aims to enable high-quality packaging independently of Hollywood is Lib-Ray [1]. Only a small part of the answer, but useful in its own right.

[1] http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2144275086/lib-ray-non-d... (I don't know how much future there is in distributing physical media, but packaging menus and other stuff that non-hackers like in a standard format is possibly interesting.)