No it isn't necessary for progress.

Standards can be (and are) developed cooperatively and these still allow and encourage progress.

C23 would not be nearly as good as it is without proprietary C compiler extensions, and other non-C programming languages. Sure, C23's versions of some features are better than many proprietary implementations, but they wouldn't exist at all if the lessons hadn't been learned from that exploration.

Once upon a time, Jabber was the messaging protocol. But what killed interoperable instant messaging wasn't a shift away from Jabber: it was a shift away from interoperability. Requiring all chat communication systems to be Jabber wouldn't have helped, and it would have prevented IRCv3.

>Once upon a time, Jabber was the messaging protocol. But what killed interoperable instant messaging wasn't a shift away from Jabber: it was a shift away from interoperability.

And how is interoperability possible without agreed standards?

The same way it always has been? Microsoft Office implements the WordPerfect formats, and WordPerfect implements the Microsoft Office formats.

Which is a process of reverse engineering and guess work.

Unless the formats are clearly-documented, and not overcomplicated. The WordPerfect format is philosophically similar to RTF, except that it's easier to get a plain-text version. Quoth http://justsolve.archiveteam.org/wiki/WordPerfect:

> If you're a programmer attempting to get a program to extract the plain text out of a WordPerfect document, and are not interested in the fancy formatting and other features, this is a fairly simple process; just make the program skip the parts that are not text.

The "fancy formatting" is pretty easy to parse, too, as I understand (though I've never tried it): it's pretty much one-to-one with what's shown in the program's UI, which is literally designed to be easy to understand.

Formats like DOC (Microsoft Office's pre-DOCX format) and PSD (PhotoShop's horrid mess) require reverse-engineering, even given the (atrocious) documentation, because they're overcomplicated and the documentation is not complete. This is what I'm saying should be prohibited. We don't need to mandate that people use existing protocols or file formats.

None of this is about mandating or forcing adherence.

Open standards allow interoperability by default. Open standards simplify development. Open standards encourage the creation of new markets. Open standards allow competitiveness that provides the consumer with choice, which is ultimately what a free market economy thrives on.

How would you suggest we ensure that the large corporations adhere to open standards, if not by mandating it?

Are browsers mandated to follow standards?

It is literally impossible to implement the full WHATWG spec, as an independent developer.

You haven't answered the question.

That's because it's a big question. You can make a browser like Dillo, but it won't be able to run web-based banking software. You can make a browser like Konquerer, but it won't be able to use Netflix, or reliably get past Cloudflare walls. So, I'd say… yeah, browser developers are effectively mandated to follow standards – except that (as I said before) it's impossible for an unauthorised developer to implement the full WHATWG spec.

You're being obtuse.

Standards aren't the issue here.