Personally I prefer the "wait 'til standardized" approach better. Web standards have been dragged through the mud enough thanks to IE and its disregard for standards. We don't need Chrome running wild doing the same.
IE caused problems by not implementing standards (or not doing it correctly) On the contrary, Chrome is causing problems with implementing pretty much everything the devs come up in their offices or only partly implementing standards.
I prefer Chrome/Firefox's way of implementing proof of concepts before standardization; it's more pragmatic, less ivory-towery. It's the difference between agile development (what people used to call XP) and waterfall.
Rather than being developed in a closed room by a committee, features emerge in a sort of darwinian sense, in that usable features survive (they're played with, commented on, blogged about, critiqued), and bad ones tend to end up being ignored. And it works because good developers won't touch features that would break a site's cross-browser compatibility, but might sneak in stuff that can gracefully fall back. Thus the whole world becomes an "agile" test bed for a potential standard until everything slowly coalesces into a stable status quo.
