The xkcd pretty neatly summarized the situation as of now. You developed and self-promote a new standard but do not explain why anyone should care.
They don't appear to be attempting to cover all use cases (in particular, it isn't trying to be human-readable), and crucially they don't appear to be proposing it as a standard.
Linked in context with other response points and it's a worthy reference, but dropped without much further discussion and the onus feels like it remains on you to justify it.
I call him out for just re-inventing the wheel by mentioning the xkcd. He proposes a new standard in his repo. He doesn‘t explain why it‘s better (not in the repo, nor in the comment), just mentions that all others are bad.
I call him out for just re-inventing the wheel by mentioning the xkcd. And indeed, critical self-reflection is necessary when developing a standard - why is it necessary? What does it do better? Otherwise, it‘s just as in the xkcd - a standard that nobody will ever use.
And instead of explaining just that he choses to attack me.
But you‘re right, a little accompanying text wouldn‘t have hurt.