MD did not "win". That would imply that no alternative situation would be possible any more. It's just the most popular Lightweight Markup Language (LML) at the moment. And I do think that it's worth challenging for very good reasons I tried to summarize in my article. (You may want to re-read the section where I mention that most LML users are not even born yet.)
Your argument "it's HTML in a short form and HTML" is not specific to MD. This is true for all LMLs. Therefore, it can't be the reason for MD. Most people making statements like that have never ever used other LMLs and think that MD is the only LML out there. I agree, that LMLs are a very good idea. However, that doesn't imply that workflows need to stick with one of the worst LMLs you can use.
"Worse is Better" is IMHO not a good argument either: "where less functionality ("worse") is a preferable option ("better") in terms of practicality and usability" (cited from the Wikipedia page). The main reason I wrote my article was that "in terms of practicality and usability", Markdown fails badly in many workflows because of the chaotic nature of Markdown not being Markdown. So actually, for the sake of "worse is better", you actually would need to migrate away from Markdown!
I would generally urge you to re-read my article as I think that I referred to all of your mentioned arguments and explained why I think it's still a very good approach to question Markdown dominance for the sake of "practicality and usability" of many, many people and workflows.
Tech savvy people should never settle for mediocre or really bad solutions just because it's difficult to switch. In the long run, you're losing.
There are multiple solutions where you may use orgdown (syntax) from within vim although I bet vim implementations will never ever reach the same level as Org-mode (Elisp) does for Emacs.
Many die-hard-vim users switched to Emacs and wrote that in their opinion, Emacs is the better vim because Emacs is able to provide everything that vim does (including vim key bindings, excluding vim-script) but not the other way round. I know that this is hard to swallow for most vim users.
I suspect you’re replying to a different poster, but I agree with the premise of the article. I’m saying the elemental features of Org syntax are much better.
I’m not attacking your thing. I’m not contesting that people have written articles about emacs-less org mode in the past. But they have simply not caught on
The purpose of the article is to make it a bit more transparent for people using Markdown-based tools that they still have some lock-in effects in place - depending how they are using one of the MD variants.
You're certainly right about the low level of popularity of orgdown. However, this was not the main purpose of the article and I made it very clear that there are many LMLs out there that do not come with the downsides of MD mentioned in the article. So even when you never ever touch org-mode or orgdown, this article is highly relevant to MD users. From that perspective, it's quite irrelevant if orgdown has caught on even though there are plenty of applications outside of Emacs that are able to use that syntax: https://gitlab.com/publicvoit/orgdown/-/blob/master/doc/Tool...
One of the arguments of the article is that there is a fundamental difference: Markdown was created as a small subset of syntax elements. Therefore, there was a high demand on syntax extensions that were added in a chaotic fashion.
Orgdown already comes with more syntax elements that Markdown probably will ever get. So I do see a clear argument for the case that "unstandardized additions" to orgdown are less likely in addition to the fact that there aren't any.
I would ask you to read the article before writing a comment like that.
The whole point of the article is that there is no Markdown. At least not a single instance from it. So when you're referring to Markdown, you're actually referring to a few dozens of slightly different markup languages which are hard to identify and except for a few, very tedious to convert.
In my opinion, this is far from being "reasonable".
Orgdown is explicitly mentioned only as one LML that doesn't come with the listed downsides of Markdown. So if you think that my article tries to convince you to use orgdown instead, you've missed the part where I say that there are many good alternatives of Markdown that do perform better when it comes to real world processes. I just tried to use orgdown as one example among many to state my point by showing an alternative. If you think that orgdown is the only one, you did not read the article carefully enough.
I'm sorry. You're starting a totally different topic here.
I tried to emphasize in my article that this is about orgdown, the syntax of Org-mode which itself is an Elisp implementation of a flexible tool.
So whenever you refer to tools like Sharepoint, Confluence, Jira, ... you're discussing tools and not lightweight markup languages and where Markdown has downsides nobody seems to know of which was the goal of my article.
It hurts me to read through the comments. One part of the people who commented obviously didn't read the article they're commenting on.
And another part of the commenters does mix up Org-mode, the Elisp implementation within Emacs, with orgdown, the lightweight syntax which is actually the topic of this article. This part of the discussion is totally missing the whole point of my article: practical issues related to Markdown; choosing any other LML which doesn't come with those downsides. Orgdown was just one example of many which I wanted to mention because it is one of the least known alternatives outside the Emacs bubble.
I extended the article accordingly and also answered to a comment that came via email.
MD did not "win". That would imply that no alternative situation would be possible any more. It's just the most popular Lightweight Markup Language (LML) at the moment. And I do think that it's worth challenging for very good reasons I tried to summarize in my article. (You may want to re-read the section where I mention that most LML users are not even born yet.)
Your argument "it's HTML in a short form and HTML" is not specific to MD. This is true for all LMLs. Therefore, it can't be the reason for MD. Most people making statements like that have never ever used other LMLs and think that MD is the only LML out there. I agree, that LMLs are a very good idea. However, that doesn't imply that workflows need to stick with one of the worst LMLs you can use.
"Worse is Better" is IMHO not a good argument either: "where less functionality ("worse") is a preferable option ("better") in terms of practicality and usability" (cited from the Wikipedia page). The main reason I wrote my article was that "in terms of practicality and usability", Markdown fails badly in many workflows because of the chaotic nature of Markdown not being Markdown. So actually, for the sake of "worse is better", you actually would need to migrate away from Markdown!
I would generally urge you to re-read my article as I think that I referred to all of your mentioned arguments and explained why I think it's still a very good approach to question Markdown dominance for the sake of "practicality and usability" of many, many people and workflows.
Tech savvy people should never settle for mediocre or really bad solutions just because it's difficult to switch. In the long run, you're losing.
We can and we should do better than that.