Also by his definition 'plain text' seems to include other markup, including LaTeX. Many academic books and articles are written this way.
Am I missing something?
The article addresses a particular area in which Microsoft Word is the dominant status quo choice, and lays out why the author thinks that "plain text" is a desirable alternative.
It does not, either explicitly or implicitly, suggest that Microsoft Word is the only alternative to plain text, or vice versa.
> Also by his definition 'plain text' seems to include other markup, including LaTeX.
I think its reasonable to describe a format where what you see if you load the file in a text editor is the same as the text you actually work with as an author as a "plain text" format.
> Many academic books and articles are written this way.
The author doesn't claim that it is unique, though he does suggest that there is resistance, particularly in his field.
> Am I missing something?
I would say it seems like two things:
1. The explicitly stated point of the article ("I want to focus on the specific, idiosyncratic reasons why I wanted (and still want) to write this way, using nothing more than a text editor and Pandoc."), and
2. the implicit target audience of the article (academics in history and similar fields).
http://programminghistorian.org/lessons/sustainable-authorsh...