A common thread in my interactions with standards bodies (W3C & IDPF, mainly) is that most of the participants (esp. those who are do it as their day job) rarely take incentives into account.
1. Is it technically feasible?
2. Is it economically feasible?
3. Does anybody have the incentives to actually implement it?
Most standards people stop at 1. A few stop at 2. A tiny tiny minority goes all the way and realises that without an incentive to implement, the standard will never matter.
A classic example is pretty much any of the many problems in the EPUB ecosystem. No matter which problem you choose, you won't find anybody in a position to affect it that has an incentive to fix it. The money just isn't there in publishing.
This is why complex standardised solutions to problems that affect regular users but don't really affect corporations are less likely to be adopted and implemented in a usable manner than a solution that ties directly into the incentives of a company.
There are many reasons why standards and specs should favour the simple over the complex.
Most of the time, users benefit more from a simple solution that solves 25% of their problem & is actually well implemented, than a complex solution that solves 100% of the problem but never ever ever gets properly implemented.
The simpler the solution, the less economic incentive is necessary for it to be viably implemented. The last thing you want is to be dependent on the goodwill of multinational cos
@baldur on top of that the simpler the protocol, the smaller the chance of protocol errors.
The simpler it is, the easier it is to implement it, the less chance of implementation errors.
All of this translates to reliability, performance, and - most importantly - security.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!