What exactly is wrong with open standards? Would you say linux creates a hosting monoculture? That's just ridiculous. Blink has been contributed to by just about every major tech company, that isn't a monoculture thats how open standards work.

An implementation cannot be a standard since a standard describes what a implementation needs to do while a implementation will need to both decide what parts of standards to implement and how to implement them and will do many things that are not described in standards. There are many behaviors, bugs and implementation details of Blink that should not and cannot be part of a standard.

As soon as a implementation becomes a standard we get ossification and implementation bugs in the standard as the only way to conform to the standard is the exact original implementation.

Besides all that while Blink has contributors from many individuals and companies it is clear that google steers the ship.

The web standards were built on the idea that multiple independent implementations were crucial, and it is a required step for a proposal to become a standard.

Linux isn't a standard either, the standard in that case would be POSIX and linux is "Mostly POSIX-compliant".

Nothing, but Blink isn't one.

> Would you say linux creates a hosting monoculture?

Yes, obviously. The GNU/Linux hegemony is a pet peeve of mine, especially because it breeds this absurd "well the most common implementation does X, so screw everyone else" mindset that needlessly hinders alternatives.