It seems like the concern w/GeoJSON and tooling applies to all non-shapefile datasets noted in here?

To make the whole thing shorter, it seems like you could also remove the part about text being easier to implement in software (seems like the full TopoJSON spec would be much harder for me to implement than GeoJSON; it's more about conceptual simplicity than whether you encode in binary? -- tho I defer to Tom here, who has actually written a bunch of parsers and may consider them similar in complexity).

Separately, I wonder if it's reasonable to have  "pull-out" or "expand" sections or whatever that go into more detail, but otherwise are minimized.  Like inline footnotes.  All these extra details are useful, but might be more than needed for a quick overview of what's theoretically a brand new topic for people.