That's why standards. Partial implementations are always a best attempt at something and having it in a uniform way makes it easier for everyone.
NSF grands are only part of the picture. Knowledge is dispersed among arxive.org papers, pdf textbooks and random blog articles with each of them doing different thing and very often this thing is just slap an image of the formula and go on.
How do you standardize new mathematical expressions that haven't been invented/discovered yet? How do you deal with fundamental disagreements surrounding those standards? Politics and Capitalism creep in everywhere, and pretending that a "uniform way" will present itself is childish.
I think that you are missing the point. A standard must not dictate which symbols should be used, if it is a straight arrow, curved arrow, or a dotted one. Its purpose is to allow all kinds of symbols, positioning and denoting of relationships so that all symbols, relationships and positioning could be reproduced from the consumer of the data, be it a browser or a screen reader.
What you do might be nice, but it does not scale. People do not include stuff for accessibility's sake. Web is the ultimate proof of that. That's why I prefer if accessibility is included in the workflow itself.
NSF grands are only part of the picture. Knowledge is dispersed among arxive.org papers, pdf textbooks and random blog articles with each of them doing different thing and very often this thing is just slap an image of the formula and go on.