There shouldn’t be any “optional bits”. Thats part of the problem. Either it’s part of a standard or it’s not. Either you meet the standard for that version number, or you don’t.
We don’t even have standards that strong in programming languages or even fucking machine code (ISAs) anymore.
I think I would like to return to that ideal time (if it ever existed), but… I feel like I’m in a vanishingly small minority.
I think it comes down to incentive structure, and the most clear incentives push away from strong stnadards. The big advantage to (a) strong standard(s) is(are) interoperability, but that’s something end users have to demand because it’s an anathema to rent-seeking-behavior (a central facet of surveillance capitalism, choke-point capitalism, enshittification, and technofuedalism). But, even there, natural incentives fail us, since most users get more utility from “innovative” features instead of low switching costs – or at least the think they do until they actually try to exit a platform/service.
The problem is that the standard is fucking huge and maybe your browser supports every feature of version 5xx but is missing a feature related to authentication using guinea pigs introduced in v369. So it would only be allowed to advertise compatibility with v368 even though it can do everything except Guinea pigs.
Realistically you would trim the standard to a core set and advertise compatibility with a version of that and then advertise optional extensions. And that’s optional bits if you ask me.
There shouldn’t be any “optional bits”. Thats part of the problem. Either it’s part of a standard or it’s not. Either you meet the standard for that version number, or you don’t.
We don’t even have standards that strong in programming languages or even fucking machine code (ISAs) anymore.
I think I would like to return to that ideal time (if it ever existed), but… I feel like I’m in a vanishingly small minority.
I think it comes down to incentive structure, and the most clear incentives push away from strong stnadards. The big advantage to (a) strong standard(s) is(are) interoperability, but that’s something end users have to demand because it’s an anathema to rent-seeking-behavior (a central facet of surveillance capitalism, choke-point capitalism, enshittification, and technofuedalism). But, even there, natural incentives fail us, since most users get more utility from “innovative” features instead of low switching costs – or at least the think they do until they actually try to exit a platform/service.
The problem is that the standard is fucking huge and maybe your browser supports every feature of version 5xx but is missing a feature related to authentication using guinea pigs introduced in v369. So it would only be allowed to advertise compatibility with v368 even though it can do everything except Guinea pigs.
Realistically you would trim the standard to a core set and advertise compatibility with a version of that and then advertise optional extensions. And that’s optional bits if you ask me.
A standard is that, a standard. The amount of moving parts (features?) is irrelevant.
Either it’s up to the standard or it isn’t.
Then no browser will be “up to” the last 15 years of the standard as none implement all features.
Correct. That is why we’re talking about having standards and enforcing them. That’s the whole point.
No the point of this discussion is about having one single yes/no question about the standard or a list of features.
So, we’re speaking different languages. Got it.