I think Typst looks really interesting for some scenarios, but inadequate for others.

I like RST a lot for Python documentation, because of all the directives for types, admonitions, and lots of domain-specific stuff. I wouldn't use RST if I'm writing a book, or a research paper.

In the same way, Typst looks like a great candidate for those last examples, but is likely unsuitable for documenting a library written in Python.

> In the same way, Typst looks like a great candidate for those last examples, but is likely unsuitable for documenting a library written in Python.

why though?

Would you categorize Markdown as unsuitable as well? if so, why?

typst is great, but there are many many steps between “markdown isn’t sufficient” and reaching for typst.

1. typst only really has pdf output at the moment 2. so much less tooling available (linters, site builders, converters etc) 3. much less of a markup format, extremely tightly coupled to a specific tool (typst compiler)

again, love typst, but it has (atm) so much fewer applications

Typst has already experimental HTML output and it specifically has a markup mode (default mode).

Conceptually Typst is a superset of a Markdown with a slightly different syntax (e.g. = instead of # for headers)

I've used typst for generating PDFs before, how good is its HTML output?

it looks like typst's html output is under construction [1].

1: https://typst.app/docs/reference/html/

I guess we need to wait until Typst is natively supported by Github.