It feels like a long term solution would be to use a markdown that is both easy to write (not RTF or XHTML), but has a defined grammar in some standard format (ex: EBNF). Most platform/languages will have a parser and so you can whip up a "renderer" or converter trivially at any point.
The only markup I'm finding with a grammar is MediaWiki (sort of..)
MediaWiki has one of the worst syntaxes and formalisations out there.
I've been trying to render wikipedia pages on and off for more than 10 years and there is no independent parser covering the whole syntax and magic behaviour.
Markdown is already fragmented, that would just be introducing a new fragment, not a standard [insert that comic that everyone posts any time someone proposes a new standard].
The long-term solution is having whatever markdown grammar you want and converting it to a standard AST. Then anyone can create their own transformations of that AST to render whatever document they want, including a new markdown document potentially in a different grammar.
In my defence, the comment I was replying to mentioned "renderers" and "converters". Furthermore IMHO, any text editor is a Markdown reader. If you want it formatted as is it were "markup" then might I suggest converting to e.g. PDF using Pandoc and then using one of the many capable viewers.
I see your point, and maybe it's a matter of preference, but I really do use my text editor for reading Markdown. I wouldn't do the same for a Word doc or HTML, without at least running it through a convertor first.
The only markup I'm finding with a grammar is MediaWiki (sort of..)
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Markup_spec
Even Djot doesn't seem to have one. Weird..