Should the HTML rendering engine in outlook 2010 be standards compliant? [closed]

Forgive my naive viewpoint (not being a web development expert), but wouldn't the world be a better place if ALL HTML rendering engines were Standards Compliant? Is this a hoplessly idealistic and unrealistic dream..? (if anyone thinks that this is a worthwhile question in it's own right, comment to that effect and I'll make it so).

"Here's the Outlook team's opinion on it and a quote ...

There is no widely-recognized
consensus in the industry about what
subset of HTML is appropriate for use
in e-mail for interoperability.

Personally, I like Word as the editor. I get familiar interface, ease of use and power and give up very little. Remember, they have to deliver a tool you don't need to know any HTML to use."

"My Outlook is already slow enough, thank you. No need to include a fully standard compliant rendering engine and bloating it up even more. An HTML subset that handles most cases adequately is enough.

Any rendering issues will affect mostly advertising email. I care more about emails that contain only written text and a few attachments, they ususally give me the information that I need for my work."

"It will no be important for the Outlook user because Outlook is compatible with Outlook. However other mail clients will likely have display issues if the HTML that Word produces is as problematic as it has been in the past.

So if you are an Outlook user that communicates with people that don't use Outlook and you find it important that no part of your mail looks garbled then it should be important to you.

That said perhaps it highlights one of the problems with email and one more reason to move away from it."