So? "Standards" only means that some group has blessed them. In particular, it doesn't imply that you're free to implement them.
What can you do with "standards" that you can't do with those projects, as they currently exist? What can't happen with standards that can happen with those projects?
Remember, no one is obligated to follow or conform to "standards".
Further more, the reason standards are nice here is because a 3rd party is the one who blessed the technology, not the biased producer of the technology. And changes to that standard need to go through the standards body and the producer is not the single owner.
Standards doesn't mean "no innovation". While the electric outlet may be a "standard" devices that use the electricity shouldn't necessarily be "standard".
ie if I want an innovative lamp to plug into my standard electric socket, that is okay.
Standards have a place and so do innovations. If Google is releasing all of their innovations which have broad applicability as open source projects, I see no reason they should slow down so that slow-moving, non-innovating standards bodies can catchup.
Not at all. I'm pointing out that they don't have the properties that you're asking for in this case.
> Further more, the reason standards are nice here is because a 3rd party is the one who blessed the technology, not the biased producer of the technology. And changes to that standard need to go through the standards body and the producer is not the single owner.
Suppose that Google submitted all of those projects to a standards body, got them approved, and then made an incompatible change to their implementations. How does their status as a standard matter?
Standards don't appear out of the ether, fully formed and ready to be implemented. Properly developed standards are built precisely the way Google is building them: with a publicly available proposal and a reference implementation in widely used software.
This happens all the time; Firefox adds non-standard CSS transforms, Microsoft adds non-standard Javascript functionality, and Apple adds proprietary video codecs to Safari. When your web app depends on these things, you hurt your users. But it's your fault for using nonstandard features; it's not Apple's or Google's or Microsoft's fault for making their browser support them. If this upsets you, consider software in general. To use Facebook, you have to use Facebook. That's nonstandard! To use an Emacs extension, you have to use Emacs. That's nonstandard! And so on.
Google and Mozilla are especially innocent, since Apple and Microsoft can easily steal any features they want from Chrome and Firefox. They're the only ones out in the open, and for that, I think they deserve to try new things for the web. If they stick, the other vendors can easily support the new features.
You talk as if blame is a conserved quantity. Just because it's the developer's fault for doing something, doesn't necessarily mean that it's not Google's fault as well for enabling them to do so.
When Google makes these technologies, they are aware of how they will, or can, be used, and that it may involve some fragmentation of the web. Aware of these consequences, they went ahead and released the technologies anyways. In my mind, that entails them a degree of responsibility for the consequences.
It's also difficult for me to take them at their word when they say "we think this problems an acceptable cost to move the web forward," because they also happen to benefit from this fragmentation. I don't think they're being intentionally duplicitous, I just don't think it's possible for anybody to make fully rational decisions in such a situation.
then "Google and Mozilla are especially innocent, since Apple and Microsoft can easily steal any features they want from Chrome and Firefox. They're the only ones out in the open, and for that, I think they deserve to try new things for the web. If they stick, the other vendors can easily support the new features."
How would these features stick, if developers using them are to blame?
Standards bodies move slowly. Non-standardised innovation across browsers is absolutely to be encouraged, as long as it is done in a manner that allows others to implement that innovation too. This sort of innovation is what helps us decide what is worth being made into a standard.
You realize that if not for Flash, sites like Youtube wouldn't have been possible at the time that it was released?
[1] ActieX didn't pan out for the web as a whole - it fared well behind the walls of enterprises.