Ok, reading once again Stan's comments I guess I finally grasped where the confusion coming from.
Stan, the thesis' that you quote form the Xara marketing materials are not exclusive as you interpret them. Let me explain on examples.
“Creating websites should be like creating PDF files - you should not need to know anything about what happens ‘under the hood‘”This means that there must be a way to create web sites the way we create PDF. This doesn't mean that this has to be the only way as you imply.

“it provides no HTML code view, and no abilities to program Javascript”This was said in context that it allows you to create sites without even needing code view and JS. You interpret it as code or JS are prohibited in WD, which is weird as you know well about all the snippets, placeholder capabilities and the willingness of Xara to make it flexible. Remember how header placeholders were added after WD release as a response to the users request? How does it fit your interpretation of this phrase?

One more thing, you disagree that: "“It’s evident that the vast majority of websites are of a graphical nature”". You can disagree of course, but the truth is that most pages on the web (by number, not visitors traffic) are amateurs pages. As you later clarify - "serious websites...". But think about it - are the "serious websites" majority of the web? I don't think you believe it.

So, Stan, you simply got a bit incorrectly the meaning of the article that you quote. It doesn't actually oppose most things you say.

PS I'm answering here instead of your blog due to several personal reasons.