That's not really a fair analogy given that one is a language and the other is a safety precaution. Prescribing languages does not generally work. The language is the usage of that language and if some body is prescribing something which diverges too far from actual usage then they're really just choosing their own obsolescence.

I think a prescribing body can be useful if its role is to guide and educate. But it really needs to know when it's fighting a losing battle. Innovation will always happen outside of that body, though, and that body will have to choose whether or not to include each innovation in its prescribed model. Divergence from the prescribed standards is at least as important as having them.

I've never cared if my pages validate with w3c or whatever, so long as they are viewable in every browser I care about, why should I? I see validation as a way to find out why a page doesn't work. Aiming for it with one which already does seems to me to be pointless and irritatingly anal.

I agree with your first two paragraphs, although I would say that standards do have a benefit, and the fact that some people don't adhere to them is not a strong reason for changing. Simply changing to meet to lowest common denominator debases the argument for standards in the first place.

Your final paragraph is just plain anarchic. Are you an anarchist, Andrew?

Aye I agree with that.

And I may have some tendencies in that direction, Nigel :$

Very good. Just don't flaunt them in my direction, Andrew. :{)