See, that's where you lose me.
A series of material, that virtually no one actually read or bought, suddenly must be adhered to for no other reason than it happened to come first? Yeah, no thanks.
It's no different than someone claiming that because there was an article in Dragon Magazine in 1997 where X was declared, we must absolutely adhere to that forevermore. I've watched in growing consternation as groups of fans circle the wagons and declare this or that MUST BE TRUE regardless of the actual quality of whatever it is that they are insisting must be followed.
Imagine if people insisting that Romeo and Juliet can only be set in Verona in the 15th century. No other versions must ever be made. Considering the recent Oscars, I'd say that would be a huge loss.
Rebooting Romeo and Juliet to a specifically different setting seems an odd analogy to whether the setting in a shared setting should have continuity across editions of D&D.
Setting Princes of the Apocalypse and Tomb of Annihilation in the Forgotten Realms seems a different issue than whether Rime of the Frostmaiden should have a design goal of being in continuity with past edition shared setting lore on Auril and Icewind Dale.
These are shared settings. They are collections of a bajillion different authors of varying skill and knowledge of the setting.
Right a shared setting with different authors.
Insisting that lore must be carved in stone and never changed is such a colossal waste of time. It means that if someone doesn't like a given setting, then they will never like it. But, if you allow different versions to exist, then everyone is happy.
Some like different reimagined versions of settings that are not in continuity. Choosing to break continuity will not however make everyone happy.
Different incompatible versions means less use can be gotten out of referencing different materials and there is more onus on the DM to be on the lookout for inconsistencies in what they use. If you want to use more lore than just the new version this can add work. If you want to use the old setting with the new rules this makes the new version of less use.
This can be seen in 5e Ravenloft where they consciously broke setting continuity and did a reimagined Ravenloft where darklords, setting history, and the nature of the land were changed to be different from the prior continuity.
A number of people were unhappy with this design choice.
If you want to use the 3e material for Dragonlance (say) there is absolutely nothing stopping you. But, why do I have to? Why do I have to play in the version of Dragonlance that you like but I don't? Why can't I have a version too?
Why would you feel you need to use or play anything? All RPG material can be used as is, modified, or not used.
This is a discussion about preferences for whether published shared RPG settings have ever had continuity and whether they should have a goal of continuity.
There were over a 100 Dragonlance novels. I really liked Weasel's Luck and Galen Beknighted and a bunch of the tales anthology short stories. I really, really disliked the Green Gemstone Man elements of the original trilogy. I see it as one continuity with elements I don't like. Not that each novel is its own separate continuity.
I would prefer that novels in the shared setting have a design goal of continuity.
I like a lot of Dragonlance RPG material. I don't care for Gully Dwarves. I have never used Gully Dwarves when I have run Dragonlance. When I have adapted Dragonlance materials to other settings in my game I have not used Gully Dwarves.
I would still prefer that Dragonlance RPG materials be designed with a goal of maintaining continuity. Emphasis and focus can change, themes and presentation can change, developments can happen, but I prefer that it be designed as part of an ongoing continuity.
Given the choice between continuity and creativity, I'll take creativity every single time, even when what's created isn't something that I want. I know that next time around, there will be another chance. But, set things in stone? Yeah, I'll go back to completely ignoring the published settings thanks and watch as the dwindling numbers of setting fans shrink into oblivion.
Continuity versus creativity seems a false dichotomy.
From the Ashes was in continuity with 1e Greyhawk but I felt it was creative in changing the tone of the setting to one of darker fantasy. 4e Forgotten Realms advancing the timeline 100 years, killing off a bunch of gods, and remixing the lands was very creative but still in continuity.
