Need write a blog post on how some participants in standards weaponise process misunderstanding to hide their inaction on important problems while holding others back.
But for now, a primer!
"proprietary": designed with intent to denying an open license, e.g. Apple's touch event patent threats.
"standards track": design intended for open licensing via standards bodies and, therefore, the widest possible adoption.
"standard": ~all parties agreed to allow it to be licensed with their support.
a "standard" refers to a design that has been given an IP halo via group assent. It has *literally nothing* to do with the quality or utility of the design. These are totally orthogonal concerns. The world is littered with standardised designs that suck, or which are not adequately described so as to promote interoperability. Something "being a standard" is not a bar for consideration or adoption in all but the most risk-averse domains.
@slightlyoff personally I would focus on standards being a matter of documentation or process rather than anything involving intent or openness.
That appreciates the standards that are either expensive to access or never really intended for widespread use, that are more exercises in staking IP ground.
And to your point it further pushes back against overly rosy perceptions of standards.
The main thing that annoys me is people pushing to adopt a standard because it is supposedly the standard when in reality it is one of many standards, and maybe not even the best of the standards on offer.
