He's simply saying that backwards compatibility and open standards are good things in that they don't break old sites/docs/etc...
You could have just as easily said the same thing and ended with "So I don't really see your point about backwards compatibility in this case".
Backwards compatibility is often the forced result of open standards because when multiple vendors adopt those standards it is in their best interest to not make breaking changes.
This in turn is(obviously) a good thing in that things designed for those standards will remain functional indefinitely.
He's simply saying that backwards compatibility and open standards are good things in that they don't break old sites/docs/etc...
You could have just as easily said the same thing and ended with "So I don't really see your point about backwards compatibility in this case".
Backwards compatibility is often the forced result of open standards because when multiple vendors adopt those standards it is in their best interest to not make breaking changes.
This in turn is(obviously) a good thing in that things designed for those standards will remain functional indefinitely.