Some of these are already long on their way to being interoperable standards (getUserMedia), some of them may never be standardised, but that is the aim.
FirefoxOS is the standard for these devices at this point, and whatever they do is then standard.
The other mobile OSs already run webapps. What does FirefoxOS bring to the table other than price? Why will developers be attracted to a platform where the users only use it because they can't afford anything else?
I guess Mozilla thinks that there are devs picking between writing a native and html based app and that getting FirefoxOS support fairly easily by using HTML will sway that decision. I don't see that happening though since FirefoxOS users won't be spending much money on apps and there won't be comparable numbers of users any time soon; getting free iOS or Android support (whichever is your secondary market) is already a much more compelling argument for using HTML, but one that doesn't seem to be winning in the marketplace.
I think it depends on how you view it. Is it a browser that also happens to power the core of the OS, or is at an OS that also happens to be a browser? I don't think where it came from originally has any bearing in the answer.
Note that it won't be available on iOS, of course, as Apple won't let alternative browsers be installed, just skins for Mobile Safari like Dolphin and Google Chrome.
This is already the case - check out http://marketplace.firefox.com/ on desktop or android Firefox.
However - note that app developers can choose to only support certain form factors. Many do support desktop however, for example https://marketplace.firefox.com/app/pasjanssolitaire
Desktop does not support all of the new WebAPIs currently though (https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/WebAPI), and certainly some may not be relevant on all platforms.
All of the API's are available via Gecko, the same Gecko that is used for desktop and android firefox, a lot of them already work on desktop (I have installed a few apps build for firefox os on my desktop).
Yes I'm sure you will 'submit' them as potential standards, but until the other vendors agree to them they are not standards. That is the huge and debilitating price that you pay by tying yourself to 'standards' - anything you want to do can be vetoed by your competitors. Anything not agreed upon is not a standard and can't be relied upon in a 'standards based' platform.