After reading Glenn Davis' article and perusing the Web Standards Project
web page, I'll confess that I'm not convinced by Mr. Davis' arguments. In
reading Microsoft's answer, I find it a reasonable answer that errs in favor
of Microsoft's customers by and large; this being a reasonable proposition
for a company.

If the value of standards are to promote compatibility and a company's statement
of mission to ensure compatibility, then the two are not at odds. It's only
when standards break existing systems that the two would be at odds. In this
case, Microsoft is merely hedging its bets; if a future standard breaks compatibility
with older systems, Microsoft will act in favor of those who use its systems
by continuing to support older systems. Is this an unreasonable position?

Standards for the sake of standards makes no sense. Take, for example, the
problem of electricity. Everyone in North America should switch to 220V --
after all, it is a better standard, right?

Wrong. While it would be nice to be compatible with other parts of the world,
the costs would be prohibitive and little would be gained from the effort.
I'm sure companies like G.E. would much rather only support one system but
in a global market, there does appear to be value for companies to support
both systems.

The world is full of incompatible standards. Why should the Internet be any