> I would not if the goal of a standard is uptake by OS and application developers.
That point is moot, as those platforms were designed with the express purpose of being particularly hostile regarding interoperability while forcing other corporate products as alternatives, in a well-known lock-in strategy.
"those platforms were designed with the express purpose"
They were designed with the purpose of giving users a way to get things done that was profitable to the company. The first part along with lock-in techniques are why most of the desktop market is Windows with a large chunk of the server market. That means the kind of portability that matters to people wanting to maximize benefit to users or profits to the company better include a Windows version. There are portability alternatives to POSIX that allow that usually with other benefits on top of it. Far from moot...
> They were designed with the purpose of giving users
No, they actually weren't.
The "users" don't have any say whether Windows complies with any standard, or even if Microsoft breaks all of them to try to force the world to submit to their "vendor lock-in" business strategy.
Trying to pass off the consequences of vendor lock-in policies as technical arguments is somewhere between absurd and disingenuous.
You said the only purpose of what Windows did was locking in people. I said it was to provide software that let people accomplish what they want while making profit sustained by lockin tricks. Are you saying Microsoft never intended people to use Windows API or software to accomplish their personal goals? That there is zero benefit to users of Windows in consumer or business space?
That point is moot, as those platforms were designed with the express purpose of being particularly hostile regarding interoperability while forcing other corporate products as alternatives, in a well-known lock-in strategy.