Hector Martin

This is how every other standard I listed works, and how USB 2.0 worked. New standards *improve* old standards, but do not *exclude* them.

3.0 shouldn't count as 3.1 and 3.2

3.0 has speeds that are also specified time in 3.1 and 3.2, just like 1.1 had speeds that were also specified in 2.0, and yet devices are not required to implement.

My 1.5mbps USB mouse is USB 2.0 compliant. Just like a 1080p TV doesn't need to support 4K to be HDMI 1.4 compliant.

Being compatible is different to being compliant. Saying something is able to reach something vs being backwards compatible. Labeling something old as new is not helpful even if that's how its been

The way USB works is that *hosts* and *hubs* need to support all speeds but *devices* do not. This makes perfect sense because USB versions aren't just about speeds; a mouse can use 2.0 features without needing to run at 480mbps. This has always been this way.

I couldn't find a place in the 3.x standard that requires hosts to support all rates for that standard; this could be an oversight, but I also haven't seen any evidence of manufacturers cheating and labeling 3.0 host ports as 3.1. All the brouhaha seems to be about *devices*.

And as I said this is *normal*, makes perfect sense, was already the case with 2.0, and is how pretty much every other standard works. You don't need to support the absolute screaming fastest data rate of a standard to call yourself compliant.