131–140 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going to work on a Quarkdown with even more Superpowers and a seamless UI/UX so you don't need to remember all the odd new commands. I shall call it Microsoft Word.
Since it’s an upgrade of markdown, you should have called it "markup".
I would really like to see a comparison of all these tools/markup languages: - MyST - Pandoc - Quarkdown - Quarto - Typst Quarto and pandoc both use Pandoc Markdown (and so does https://www.zettlr.com/ ). But Quarkdown and Typst offer programmable markup languages like LaTeX (or HTML + Javascript). It seems the winner for the title official LaTeX successor is still not decided.
I used (and will continue to use) most of those. Quick rules of thumb: - markdown is .txt with just a tiny bit of syntactic sugar/syntax highlighting, and you can export it to pdf or html - quarto is markdown-but-I-want-to-execute-code-blocks-inside - typst is latex but modern, with 90% less cruft and 10% less functionality (academia, hating everything modern, will also hate you if you use typst) - pandoc is how you…
It's okay if this is not the day to day tool used to render, but this should be possible. It's just a compiler between two languages, and latex happens to be Turing complete (and can display arbitrary things to a PDF), so it's 100% in the "not impossible" category
With such a tool nobody has to know if you use typst personally. Just like, say, nobody has to know you use jj rather than git
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used (and will continue to use) most of those. Quick rules of thumb: - markdown is .txt with just a tiny bit of syntactic sugar/syntax highlighting, and you can export it to pdf or html - quarto is markdown-but-I-want-to-execute-code-blocks-inside - typst is latex but modern, with 90% less cruft and 10% less functionality (academia, hating everything modern, will also hate you if you use typst) - pandoc is how you…
> (academia, hating everything modern, will also hate you if you use typst) I chuckled. I'd love to try out typst when the time comes. But for writing a journal paper, it's still going to be latex.
(I haven't yet tried to write a full paper in it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what ways is HTML produced by transpiling LaTeX more accessible that HTML produced by Typst?
The HTML generated by LaTeX is currently very good (you can read basically every paper on arXiV in HTML). The html generated by Typst just.. doesn't really work currently. I checked a few weeks ago, tables didn't output sensibly. Looking at the docs their plan doesn't seem to be to aim for total coverage in general.
I would really like to see a comparison of all these tools/markup languages: - MyST - Pandoc - Quarkdown - Quarto - Typst Quarto and pandoc both use Pandoc Markdown (and so does https://www.zettlr.com/ ). But Quarkdown and Typst offer programmable markup languages like LaTeX (or HTML + Javascript). It seems the winner for the title official LaTeX successor is still not decided.
Pandoc lives in a different tier because it gives you arbitrary filters so you can do any transformation you want on the intermediate JSON format. And it converts anything to and from that JSON format. So I prefer Pandoc based systems because anything the tool doesn't do that you want is probably implementable with a simple inline filter.
The older filter mechanism acted on a JSON serialization of the AST, but the current recommendation is to use Lua filters that work with the internal AST directly.
Markdown extensions for cross-refs, admonitions, conditional content, function-based reuse — design-wise, those are tractable. The gap most projects in this space hit is downstream: tagged PDF that conforms to PDF/UA, deterministic builds across environments, hreflang and cross-document linking for multi-language docs sites, incremental rebuilds that don't choke on a 500-page book. PDF/UA matters more in the EU since the European Accessibility Act took effect on 28 June 2025.
Curious what the plan looks like there for the four doctypes — paged in particular.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It always bugs me that _underscore_ is the syntax for italics rather than underline. I’m sure back in the old days of READMEs, long before markdown was a thing, the conventions were this: /italics/ _underline_ *bold*
My /usr/bin/ folder wants to know which bit gets italicised :)
But also, this convention predated rendering text/plain as text/html
I really hate it when the recommended install method is curl-ing some script directly into a shell, often as root. Especially since it's pretty well known that the remote end can tell whether it's going to a script or a file. Quarkdown's page has this: curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/quarkdown-labs/get-quarkdo... | sudo env "PATH=$PATH" bash And… yuck. And that ".sh" is kind of annoying all by itself.
After looking at it for 1 minute, it seems that this is to markdown what CSS is to HTML. How accurate is that?
By the Standard Model of Physics Software you can edit Quarkdown in Atom to get Quarkup and change your Neutron Mail to Proton Mail, but it only works if you type with your left hand and create an Electron app and an anti-Neutrinos AI blogpost.