If you read, I wasn't talking about adoption rates (although that is also an issue worth noting).
You might have noticed that I mentioned that Flash brought about new innovations to the web. Most notably, how video is handled.
Try to look forward and see beyond HTML5, just as you seem to have no problem doing with HTML5 adoption rates.
All I wanted to say was that those three sites could be technically created using HTML5.
You then seemed to say that HTML5 doesn't actually let you create the effects exhibited in those websites. I corrected you and referred you to the modules.
Sorry for any misunderstandings. If we are clear on the above, and you would like to bring up a new point, I'd be happy to engage in a separate debate.
The side-step again. The examples that you gave (a vague reference to ADC) did not support your argument. You might remember: "Show me http://mycanvas.landsend.com or http://www.myspace.com/fanvideo in HTML5." It was apparent to me that we had moved away from the Blizzard sites.
The very simplistic Blizzard sites (which I agree could be done in HTML5 to some extent) are not what I would consider heavy or complex.
I asked: "I wanna see this level of complexity without a hindrance on development time, performance or scope."
You replied with the same double talk I expect in a Flash vs. HTML5 thread: "I'd recommend checking out the CSS animation / transitions modules at the W3C to get familiarized. " You mean the fully implemented CSS transitions?
If you can't give examples, then just say that. Don't come back with a vague blanket statement.
I already explained why I cannot give you an example of a AAA HTML5 website (Internet Explorer doesn't support it).
If you'd like to discuss the technical aspects of HTML5, feel free to email me at jeff@wolfire.com - I am going to stop checking this thread.