I find it hard to assume that Markdown is extremely well thought-through considering the fact that we didn't even get a grammar for the language, just an implementation that would be considered super broken in any other language.
> The overriding design goal for Markdown’s formatting syntax is to make it as readable as possible. The idea is that a Markdown-formatted document should be publishable as-is, as plain text, without looking like it’s been marked up with tags or formatting instructions. While Markdown’s syntax has been influenced by several existing text-to-HTML filters, the single biggest source of inspiration for Markdown’s syntax is the format of plain text email.
Instead, Markdown should be thought of as a convention. A convention that allows for automated translation of ascii text into html. Further, instead of thinking of Markdown as designed think of it as evolved.
In the case of an evolved convention, we wouldn't expect formalism or even long term design. What we would expect and what Markdown is extremely good at is usefulness, high levels of adoption and ease of change. Which we do see. If your needs require formalism, or complex html features then Markdown is not the right tool for you.
Because markdown is for humans first and foremost, not computers. It can't be clearer than that.
If it's intended for humans first and foremost, then why offer the transpiler? After all, it already looks like ASCII e-mail. The overriding directive is human-readability, not unparsability (which do not go hand in hand).
http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
I don't think it's far-fetched to say what tptacek did since it's dang close to what Gruber has always said about Markdown. Note that phrasing: it's not a language, it's a "plain text formatting syntax."