Apologies for that part, then. I just don't see standards compliance like other people do. Personally, I don't see standards as things that imply some kind of morality. They are tools to accomplish a goal. sometimes other goals may supersede their usefulness.
That is fair enough. I have not argued against your point of view. My comment was more on the linguistic side of things.
You criticised the parent's language saying that "you don't violate a standard" because it "isn't a law". I was just pointing out that you do indeed violate a standard because it's a standard, and saying that does not add any kind of moral or passion value - it's just using the language the way it's intended.
It follows that when someone implements functionality that doesn't follow POSIX, POSIX has been violated.
There's nothing wrong with the statement.