Actually, for now, only a small number of editors do recognise them.
It’s important to understand the difference between the links and their use cases.
Standard markdown was for web pages etc. Links were infrequent, usually to external files but with an option for internal. Documents were otherwise standalone just like a word processor.
Wikis were all about links, mostly internal.
The first placed most reliance on specifying the precise file and path - speed mattered less because they were done less.
The reverse for wikis because linking was done so often the wiki was its own construct so there was no gain spending time specifying file and path more than necessary.
Obsidian and the other knowledge based note programs are built around linking and so ease and speed matters. That’s why they all go for wiki-links. They all, more or less, go for markdown because it is plaintext (therefore easy to process) and is a pre-existing standard of sorts. They all add extensions when they need something that doesn’t exist in a markdown standard - nothing new there.
Realising the power and popularity of the linking paradigm, older programs are rushing to add wiki-links.
Editors don’t have the same need, and most of their users are just using them as document processors. They will change slower, and only if they perceive their users regarding it as a must have feature.
I think that day will come, you may not.
For now standard links will cost time and effort in Obsidian and other programs that allow wiki-links.
Wiki-links will cost effort and probably time if you often use editors that don’t understand them.
The best future proofing guarantee is the ability to convert (Obsidian has said it will provide a converter to standard links).
