Typst is great. I think they'll catch up to LuaTeX in terms of typographic quality in near future. But Typst is for typesetting; it's essentially a programming language for layout. If you compare it to e.g. Asciidoc, the latter is for content and semantics. We need both. But Asciidoc has unneccessary complexity and ambiguity, and the results are often surprising. So I made an unambiguous, deterministic subset of Asciidoc which I now use for most of my specs and which can be parsed by a single recursive descent parser and generate Typst. It's still work in progress, but if anyone is interested, here is the link: https://github.com/rochus-keller/leandoc/.
back
1 comments
Situation: There are 15 competing standards.
Which ones do you mean? I'm only aware of the "official" specification attempt of Asciidoc; mine is a (much leaner) alternative to that. If you mean the different markdown dialects or e.g. Rst, they play in a different league. DocBook was the de facto standard for serious technical documentation for well over a decade. AsciiDoc was created as a plain-text, human-readable alternative to DocBook; it has taken on DocBook's former role as the go-to system for serious technical book publishing, used by O'Reilly, Red Hat, and many open source projects.