It does - that's the whole idea of "web standards". There's no such thing as a browser's standards, there's just standards (and in different stages of acceptance or "baked"). IE11, for instance, supports a whole swath of "web standards", but not some of the more instantly new (and not yet *actual standards*) "standards" that a lot of web devs talk about. The use of the word "standards" when it comes to the web is actually an abused, misused word, because most of the "new, shiny" things developers write their code for (and browsers like Chrome and Firefox support quite quickly) aren't actually standardized yet, and are subject to change (and Chrome, Firefox, et. al. change to handle the new track if a "standard" changes during it's development lifecycle, or provide a vendor-flagged version of that feature instead, but that means code written to the "standard" previously breaks, or you have to write to each browser like it's 1999 again). Knowing this, and knowing that IE has the benefit and curse of being a 10-year (or close to it) supported product, Microsoft can't just change course with a version of IE mid-stream - once released, it's way of rendering things MUST stay the same. As such Microsoft's browser generally only supports "standards" that are actually that, or are at least in the final stages of becoming one.
I'm not saying one way is better than another, but I'm saying the use of the word "standards" in "web standards" is already a joke, and people judge IE harshly because of it, when in fact it's the browser that is consistently *the most standards-compliant*, because it supports (fully) actual standards (in fact, a good portion of the tests for each finalized or finalizing standard come from *Microsoft*).
