If you were to write something like HTML, how would you do so in a manner that didn't involve raw text? Sure it might be [emph shown] in a marked up way, but then doesn't your LaTeX editor do this?
And if your editor does this, how can you be sure that the new markup language for documents are not, in fact, superior in readability and expressiveness to LaTeX?
I mean, the made up formatting I tried to show in this comment is more readable and extendable than LaTeX (in my eyes, anyway), but it is still raw text.
Html wasn’t mentioned in the article but it is ok. I find latex easier and the result more attractive.
My editor doesn’t do any highlighting or anything like that. It does have syntax-dependent motion commands, which work better with LT than html.
More usable for you perhaps, but certainly not for me.
Edit: changed parent → grandparent
> One of the great things about Latex (or raw tex) is that you can simply type it into a buffer.
and pointing out it also applies to HTML.
Back in 1984 I wrote a small WYSIWYG editor at PARC that outputted primitive LaTex. Fortunately LaTeX was quite early stage and that little project went nowhere. But one of the lessons was that semantic markup was much easier to do by just typing rather than trying to infer it context, while -driven changes meant people usually just changed font and size and erased the semantic anyway. This has been borne out by Word.
Edit: added bit starting “But one of...” to explain my comment