The xml syntax is very wordy.
SGML, not XML.... at least if talking proper HTML and not XHTML. Kissing cousins, but not the same thing.
... and you say that like it's a bad thing. It's hardly "wordy" when the words describe what things ARE, or SHOULD BE in a professionally written document... or even any document written by anyone older than the age of 12 since this was late elementary to middle-school English back in the late '70's / early '80's; Which I can only assume is now doctorate level classwork at college given the state of education right now.
This is in stark contrast to formats like markdown which are more pleasant to write in and I feel easier to understand.
See, this is what I wanted to hear from people, even though I heartily disagree. For me, markdown is painfully aggravatingly cryptic -- Aaron and I had it out no-end over his little "creation" where all those easily forgotten use of characters made it painfully aggravating to work with, particularly with any content where you might need/want to nest meanings.
But that shows how differently we all think about things. I have the exact opposite reaction to markdown that you do. I find it aggravatingly cryptic and impossible to remember.
Even more importantly, I think markdown emphesises the document/semantic nature of markup
How is that so? I see little to no semantics in it, since it appears to be almost entirely about writing content as presentation, choosing the cryptic symbols ENTIRELY because of how you want things to look -- the polar opposite
of semantic markup!
The whole point of HTML is to say what things are, or would be in a professionally written document for grammatical reasons. Markdown seems to exist to create visual style and jack-else.
I'm wondering how you came to that conclusion about markdown... possibly because you've never seen/been told how HTML is supposed to work in terms of leveraging semantics?
In latex and markdown, a newline is just assumed to start a paragraph.
Actually they're not assumed to mean anything, and that's what's wrong with them. The only effect they have is presentational. You use newlines for headings and lists, does that also make them GRAMMATICAL paragraphs? Of course not. That's why from the point of view of what HTML is for, LaTex and Markdown are rinky crippled toys that have more in common with the abortive train wreck disaster that was HTML 3.2, than any proper semantic markup practices.
For all intents and purposes what they do is more akin to the deprecated <center> or <font> tags, and attributes like border or bgcolor than any proper 21st century HTML.
Of course with 90%+ of the people out there still vomiting up HTML 3.2 and masquerading it as HTML 4 Tranny or slapping 5 lip-service around it, one can hardly be surprised the notion and good practice of "separation of presentation from content" goes unused by people not qualified to write a single blasted line of HTML. Aka those who use front-end frameworks, those who use classes to say what they want things to look like, or those who choose their HTML tags based on what they want things to look like. ALL broken choices based on false assumptions.
Which is how we get people who make websites that start with H5 and have anchors just thrown into NAV any-old-way in complete ignorance of what HTML is, what it is for, or how to use it. (again, see bootcrap developers)
I think that's what frustrates me the most about all this junk. HTML is easy, people make it hard seemingly on purpose and why? The best answer we can get is "I don't want to change" or "wah wah, eye dunz wunna lurns". NOT exactly inspiring.
It's like the LAZY "I don't want to have to rewrite" -- fine, stick with your outdated crap. That's no excuse for NEW websites
and why the people who spent most of the past two decades vomiting up "transitional" markup are so damned annoying. Just like the people who use frameworks to slide-around the validation whilst still using the same broken bloated ignorant methodologies that were the core of HTML 3.2 and 4 tranny, undoing 20+ years of progress! Now they get to slap HTML 5's doctype atop the same incompetent trash and back-slap each-other over how "modern" they are?
As a great man once said whilst defending the Ardennes: NUTS!