Yeah, that's a fair point. But normally standards imply functionality. And if something's useful enough that people are inventing creative ways to achieve it, it would likely be standardized, if there's a process to do so. So, the issue about a standard process remains.
It's not really possible to separate that from functionality.
Your point about the potential rigidity of standards is well taken. However, it’s important to note that a standard, by its nature, doesn’t necessarily have to be rigid and inflexible in a way that hinders progress or creativity. Standards can be designed with adaptability in mind, providing a stable foundation while still allowing for innovation and flexibility. This balanced approach ensures that standards serve as helpful guidelines, not as constraints that stifle growth or possibilities.
Your final point about the practical realities where standards rubber meets the road, so to speak, is also a good one. But there's a distinction between the type of standards you might be referring to, such as in manufacturing or quality assurance, and web. In the former, standards indeed can produce this kind of regulatory capture or bloated compliance industry, and associated restriction on innovation and competition. And on the other hand, the type of standards that we mean when we talk about the web, even though it's the same word, I think they're very distinct in fundamental ways.
Although they share the same terminology, web standards tend to be more about enabling interoperability, innovation, and accessibility, rather than imposing restrictive regulations. However, restrictions do occur and they are sometimes abused, seemingly by big vendors to enhance their value capture by penalizing alternatives in the name of “user safety”. In that sense, web standards can share the “corruption of standards” which I think is invoked by your last point.