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?