The common usage of a language is not fixed in amber for the ages, no matter how much the French like to pretend it is. Language evolves and changes over time. As for "official definitions", please bear in mind that dictionary definitions are often quite subjective and definitions can differ substantially from dictionary to dictionary. In Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary, for example, I find (note the underlined section):
One entry found for alright. Main Entry: alright
Pronunciation: (")ol-'rIt, 'ol-"
Function: adverb or adjective
Date: 1887
: ALL RIGHT
usage The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright -- Gertrude Stein>.
Note the absence of a definitive judgment that this is "nonstandard usage" and a recognition that this usage is common in journalistic and business publications.
If you're going to engage in a discussion of language issues, at least show some manners.
Language discussions generally get reduced down to arguments of formal grammars and dictionaries vs. the common usage. While I do see a value in standardized English, I think that the grammar and dictionary advocates can often lose sight of the fact that the grammars and dictionaries exist to describe the common usage, the common usage does not exist to comply with grammars and dictionaries. And this becomes a real problem when scholars introduce rules into English that are not native to the common usage (e.g., the "split infinitive", mathematical negation, etc.).