But there's no standard interopability with a standard X11 socket anymore. There's interopability with KWin and Mutter and wlroots and a bunch of other things through FreeDesktop standards (Wayland being among them).
You might consider it a philosophical problem that Wayland is not trying to solve all the problems that X11 tried to solve. You might attach a lot of philosophical value to that architecture. But Windows, macOS, ChromeOS and Android seem to be doing extremely well on an architecture that is a lot less like X11 and a lot more like Wayland.
> screen sharing:
- Security problem, untrusted access to display, explicitly denied by design.
> hotkey daemons
- Security problem, untrusted input, denied by design.
> window managers
- Messing about with windows without authorization, denied by design.
> xdotools
- Untrusted input.
> clipboard managers
- Untrusted access to clipboard.
Either the compositor application has to do it, or it has to delegate it to a trusted application.
So yeah, deep philosophical problems. If you wanted Wayland to work exactly like X11 it won't because that is explicitly against its security design.
Wayland is trying to do less than X11. The things you mention are not solved at the display protocol level on any platform but X11. Your security strawman never comes in to play.
Yeah, it's not like anyone needs that functionality to do work or anything. In fact, why not just refuse to boot the computer in the first place? That'll stop a lot of security problems.
No they are deep philosophical problems. The lack of necessary protocols that allow a unified implementation for things like screen sharing, hotkey daemons, window managers, xdotools or clipboard managers are the problem.
As long as there is no standardized way to do essential tasks that are typical for a desktop use case Wayland will eternally cause problems.