Will channel9 ever adhere to w3c standards compliance?

Being a coder i take pride in my code and especially when it comes to html code I attempt to do my best to make sure its viewable across all browsers and that it is as standards compliant as possible... however... channel9 appears to have some absolutely horrendous html code which can contribute to:

a) accessibility problems (i mean vision impared people)
b) rendering problems
c) inconsistancy across browser platforms

Below you'll find a url to channel9's validated source code by the w3c validator:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fchannel9.msdn.com&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=%28detect+automatically%29

My question is, why does channel9 not attempt to make code that simply complies to w3c standards?

I mean we're all developers here (well at least the majority), it would be rather nice if channel9 complied with w3c set standards.

This opens up a debate of what really is the reason behind microsoft not wishing to adhere to industry standards and deciding to create their own rules. 

Why is it that microsoft likes to defy this?
Why not make something that is commonly accessible by all platforms by adhering to a standard?

You can find some previous discussions about this on the "Known Issues with Channel 9" thread. Some of the content from that thread has in turn been aggregated onto the wiki as Channel9Bugs. And you're probably interested specifically in the SuckyHtml page

Works on my machine

sigh...pop in...register and then whine...nice

Yes, it will be standards compliant one day. We have some challenges to overcome, mainly the fact that the software we based Channel 9 on was in Alpha and it generates non-compliant HTML right now.  We have to make modifcations to it for this to get cleaned up.  Right now we are prioritizing improving functionality of the site and fixing basic bugs.  We do care, and it will come.

IMO

Its bad form to bash a product or service or entity on standards compliance in a accusitory manner.

IMO

Its also bad form to simple say IWOMM (It works on my machine) in response, or to bash back in a personal manner.

The fact is the compliance on much of the web is lacking, Microsoft controlled or not. This particular example needs some attention but its still early in the game here. I am sure it will get better as the tools being used progress a bit.

(Quick candlenegas fetch me my flame resistant suit...)

I'd sincerely appreciate continued effort into this great project with less effort focused on making this compliant with anything other than IE 6.

Also, it's a good jeeeorb with ASP.NET Forums.  I played extensively with it a year and a half ago...didn't suit my needs at the time, however, glad to see it powers something "real".