I have only the greatest admiration for the colossal system you have built and the incredibly vast community that embraces it. As a professional web developer, I could not imagine aspiring to emulate your superhuman feat.
My understanding of the technical challenges and environmental considerations (including platform and human factors aspects) requisite to this accomplishment have made me your stunchest supporter in all implementation related questions that I have seen addressed here, with this one exception.
I believe your use of the word "simple" is the first instance of that word in this chain. I'm not sure who you believe requested a "simple answer" here (or anywhere else), but I want to assure you that it is not me. I expressed my frustration with not receiving a clear set of rules for what elements, whether html or the absurdity called "wiki code" is and is not supported. As I have stated before, as well as in other related questions, I want to see a single page with specification of the elements that are supported, which you may divide into 2 groups if you wish - those that are encouraged and those that are discouraged, but nonetheless are available for use in rare situations and/or by people who are more expert users.
The word "clear" in no way is synonymous with "simple" in my mind. I use it as the antithesis of "ambiguous", "confusing", and difficult to find, which is how the "official" set of "recommended" codes is currently presented. I recognize that you have evaded using a word like "rule", substituting "recommended" instead. Perhaps that is for psychological effect, but it seems to me that rules are precisely what are needed. If you want to avoid using such a direct word because of the possibility that it carries a negative valance, I can easily accept "supported" - at least that states what can and cannot be done, instead of leaving it to people like me to use trail and error in order to figure that out.
I have said before, and will reiterate here - I am willing to accept the limitations of whatever capabilites you choose to permit, but I would be very appreciative if you could just make a clear statement of what these are. You may recall that I offered to create a page that is comprehensive, easily navigable, and addresses three different purposes for which users would refer to the page. I am well qualified to do this - I have designed and developed IETMs (Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals) for the government in the past. My offer still stands and will remain open to you, should you choose to accept it.
If you want to see the lengths to which I have felt forced to go to, in order to create a pleasant appearance and maximize functionality, within my vague understanding of what is "recommended", please see the Category:Holocaust page, where you can see my contortions on the editing page.