The world is full of both kinds of people. Any attempt on the part of the format to dictate one or the other approach will simply reduce the use of the format. As firmly convinced as you are of the rightness of your position, there is at least an equal number of equally committed champions of the other position, regardless of which position you hold.
Encouraging/facilitating the presentation software to accept data in either format and render it in either format will be the winning solution.
Baking experts seem to be almost universally on the side of mass. It's more divided outside baking (though mostly breaks down along American/everyone else lines). It's really compelling to support both because recipes are legacy systems. I make the dinner rolls I make because my grandma makes them that way, and that's what my family likes. I can and have converted it to mass, because I can measure flour faster that way.
But the amount specified in any unit is an approximation. How much flour that dough needs is dependent on how much moisture is in that dough. That's different in different kitchens, with different flours, at different times of year. My grandma specified five cups of flour, plus more for working the dough, so it will always take more than that. The thing I like isn't five cups of flour, or 600 grams, it's whatever is necessary to achieve the right dough. 600g is a better approximation, because it's more consistent. But ultimately if you want to learn to cook something the way someone else does, you need a lot of qualitative instruction in addition to the quantitative
In my table (in a coffee shop) right now I have a fee recipe books about baking: flour lab, la patisserie de Yann Couvrer, le Grand libre de la viennoiserie, french patisserie by Ferrandi and they all use weights for baking recipes (tho the last one also has volumes).
I have some grandma recipes which are whatever-metric (some sort of pancakes are "one egg, one egg of water, one spoon of flour") but I think it's mostly historical.
Nah, cooking/baking is chemistry and recipes are about faithfully reproducing the reactions as specified. This comes down to reproducibility and reliability which comes down to quality of the ingredients, ease of using the technique, and skill of the person doing it.
And the metric that is most reproducible for liquid or dry ingredients is weight, because it can preserve ratios. That's why professional bakeries, baristas, and chefs don't measure their ingredients by volume since it's inaccurate even for the most skilled technicians. Just like your pharmacist isn't measuring dosage by volume without known and precise densities.
For example I don't think it matters if you measure oil or water by volume since that's rather easy to do. That said, if you want to preserve ratios with the rest of your ingredients you better be doing it by weight or else you won't be faithfully following the recipe.
This is not a subjective comparison. If a recipe is only specified by volume it cannot be followed accurately. Similarly if you want to design your own, you need a notepad to track ratios by weight.
All high level pastry recipes have converted to weights a long time ago since precision is important, but truth is for most recipes exact dosage does not matter so traditional measures from a time when scales were less common and precise survive.
This is as un-winnable a debate as vi vs emacs.
The world is full of both kinds of people. Any attempt on the part of the format to dictate one or the other approach will simply reduce the use of the format. As firmly convinced as you are of the rightness of your position, there is at least an equal number of equally committed champions of the other position, regardless of which position you hold.
Encouraging/facilitating the presentation software to accept data in either format and render it in either format will be the winning solution.