is that not in a way saying "Wind is NOT (strictly) optional."? That must be in the POH somewhere, surely?
One needs to distinguish between what the Design Standards require to be in the AFM (by whatever title) and how the operator might provide such data to line crews.
If we consider takeoff and landing distances (for US certificated Types - but the philosophy is pretty general) then 25.105 and 25.125 impose a must condition for wind scheduling. ie the operator is stuck with the AFM wind carpet corrections .. you must not takeoff at a greater than AFM tailwind nor can you take RTOW credit for greater than AFM headwind.
The operator, on the other hand, might well simplify the AFM data in the local operating manual along the lines which OS has suggested .. so long as the operating manual data is conservative with respect to the AFM requirements. This is a pretty typical sort of approach to establishing general takeoff charts for line use .. to run an AFM calculation generally is not viable within the constraints of a commercial schedule.
Regarding LDR and temperature, it is not clear whether ST refers to Perf MLM or LDR when talking about "The AFM Performance section landing charts".
Generally, US AFMs will not include temperature (other than the inferred standard temperature for Hp) for landing distance. Some countries will vary this - eg Australia always used to require the Australian AFM to schedule Hd rather than Hp for just this concern.
However, when determining MLW (or MLM) you still need to check the WAT limits and they have a temperature accountability .. as is technically sensible.
MLM and LDR are just two ways of looking at the same thing for a distance limited landing. One needs to keep in mind that, for all these calculations, one runs a bunch of sums for various potentially limiting requirements .. with the most limiting resulting value becoming the MLM.
I too would expect Temp in the MLM.- indeed, any perf item which is thrust related.
For landing distance, the thrust is flight idle so can be sensibly ignored... but not so for the approach and landing WAT limits.
Likewise in LDR to cater for higher TAS/energy with ISA+.
An oft-cited concern .. which is covered if you use Hd rather than Hp.
Just one of those certification quirks, I'm afraid.... and one of the reasons Tech Log has such an important educational role for the flying community .. to cover all those little things which either got glossed over in ATPL theory .. or weren't even considered.
Note in contrition .. I have been chastised for jargon ..
Hp = PH = pressure height (or altitude)
Hd = DH = density height (or altitude)
.. sometimes I get a tad slack, I know ...