html and css tried to separate the content into html: answering "what is it?",headline, paragraph, picture and the data that makes up the content. And the look and formatting to css: "font, background, indents, etc."
This was a good idea and a good approach, but formatting is done to communicate. It is also information and content or they carry meaning.
So there is some overlap between "real content" and "content that's in style".
The choice of pdf and "publishing" in "journals" is a conscious one. In my opinion it's a bad one. The scientists involved have to pick something, but tradition doesn't absolve them of their responsibility to pick a good format to present their research in.
Publishing or having published in traditional journals that are run for profit or aren't universally open access, is not defensible. People who do it are bad people. The damage they've done can be "undone" by decisive, public positioning against those journals and publishers and using their copyright to ask for depublication. Also naming and shaming of other researchers who hold other parts of the copyright, who refuse to use it for depublication.
For both natural languages and programming languages, the language we use shapes how we think.
E.g. in German which is a gendered language, the default for professions is male, which is a frequent point of conflict in public debate because the names of entire professions are either not PC, replacements are cumbersome and/or its not traditional.
You can probably picture who argues for which side and why.
(personally I dont care and I'm fine with either)
For programming languages its actually really interesting who argues for which kind of expressions and where and why.
The difference between allowing features like GOTO or gow to handle whitespace is pretty big.
I am a big fan of python. I think it does a lot of things very well and enforces a good scaffolding for formatting and content.
I don't like several additions that weaken the implicit splicity of the syntax and some requirements for explicit actions.
Specifically Klingon is fun to learn, since it really opens up a new space of options, for Liguistics Casuals like me. The idea of encoding concepts, cases, etc. in single syllables is pretty neat and it's specifically not limited to 1:1 translations. Just because regular languages don't have special syllables for "the feeling of a late night craving for pickles and chocolate cake" or doesn't mean it's impossible to create and use syllables like that. In practice, there are probably adoption challenges.
If we had a well working academia or political sphere, defining special cases and syllables to mean things like "I sincerely doubt you are correct good sir and with all due respect, would like you to provide independently verified science to support your position and proposition", instead of "party B is a poopy-bad", could streamline discussion in those spaces.