HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
jgm
djot
Emacs Lisp2022–2026
jgm / djot

djot

A light markup language

24Distinct people
29Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
2.1KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A light markup language

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year29 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2022-07-12 01:20:34 UTC to 2026-07-06 06:26:43 UTC.

0510152022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 15 mentions; 5 submissions, 10 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 7 mentions; 1 submissions, 6 comments20242025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC15510
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC716
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC413

From the project README

An excerpt from the repository, fetched Nov 13, 2026.

Read the project’s introduction
Djot Djot is a light markup syntax. It derives most of its features from commonmark, but it fixes a few things that make commonmark's syntax complex and difficult to parse efficiently. It is also much fuller-featured than commonmark, with support for definition lists, footnotes, tables, several new kinds of inline formatting (insert, delete, highlight, superscript, subscript), math, smart punctuation, attributes that can be applied to any element, and generic containers for block-level, inline-level, and raw content. The project began as an attempt to implement some of the ideas I suggested in my essay Beyond Markdown. (See Rationale, below.) This repository contains a Syntax Description, a Cheatsheet, and a Quick Start for Markdown Users that outlines the main differences between djot and Markdown. You can try djot on the djot playground without installing anything locally. Rationale Here are some design goals: It should be possible to parse djot markup in linear time, with no backtracking. Parsing of inline elements should be "local" and not depend on what references are defined later. This is not the case in commonmark: [foo][bar] might be "[foo]" followed by a link with text "bar", or "[foo][bar]", or a link with text "foo", or a link with text "foo" followed by "[bar]", depending on whether the references [foo] and [bar] are defined elsewhere (perhaps later) in the document. This non-locality makes accurate syntax highlighting nearly impossible. Rules for emphasis should be simpler. The fact that doubled characters are used for strong emphasis in commonmark leads to many potential ambiguities, which are resolved by a daunting list of 17 rules. It is hard to form a good mental model of these rules. Most of the time they interpret things the way a human would most naturally interpret them---but not always. Expressive blind spots should be avoided. In commonmark, you're out of luck if you want to produce the HTML a<em>?</em>b, because the flanking rules classify the first asterisk in a*?*b as right-flanking. There is a way around this, but it's ugly (using a numerical entity instead of a). In djot there should not be expressive blind spots of this kind. Rules for what content belongs to a list item should be simple. In commonmark, content under a list item must be indented as far as the first non-space content after the list marker (or five spaces after the marker, in case the list item begins with indented code). Many people get confused when their indented content is not indented far enough and does not get included in the list item. Parsers should not be forced to recognize unicode character classes, HTML tags, or entities, or perform unicode case folding. That adds a lot of complexity. The syntax should be friendly to hard-wrapping: hard-wrapping a paragraph should not lead to different interpretations, e.g. when a number followed by a period ends up at the beginning of a line. (I anticipate that many will ask, why hard-wrap at all? Answer: so that your document is readable just as it is, without conversion to HTML and without special editor modes that soft-wrap long lines. Remember that source readability was one of the prime goals of Markdown and Commonmark.) The syntax should compose uniformly, in the following sense: if a sequence of lines has a certain meaning outside a list item or block quote, it should have the same meaning inside it. This principle is articulated in the commonmark spec, but the spec doesn't completely abide by it (see commonmark/commonmark-spec#634). It should be possible to attach arbitrary attributes to any element. There should be generic containers for text, inline content, and block-level content, to which arbitrary attributes can be applied. This allows for extensibility using AST transformations. The syntax should be kept as simple as possible, consistent with these goals. Thus, for example, we don't need two different styles of headings or code blocks. These goals motivated the following decisions: Block-level elements can't interrupt paragraphs (or headings), because of goal 7. So in djot the following is a single paragraph, not (as commonmark sees it) a paragraph followed by an ordered list followed by a block quote followed by a section heading: My favorite number is probably the number 1. It's the smallest natural number that is > 0. With pencils, though, I prefer a # 2. Commonmark does make some concessions to goal 7, by forbidding lists beginning with markers other than 1. to interrupt paragraphs. But this is a compromise and a sacrifice of regularity and predictability in the syntax. Better just to have a general rule. An implication of the last decision is that, although "tight" lists are still possible (without blank lines between items), a sublist must always be preceded by a blank line. Thus, instead of - Fruits - apple - orange you must write - Fruits - apple - orange (This blank line doesn't count against "tightness.") reStructuredText makes the same design decision. Also to promote goal 7, we allow headings to "lazily" span multiple lines: ## My excessively long section heading is too long to fit on one line. While we're at it, we'll simplify by removing setext-style (underlined) headings. We don't really need two heading syntaxes (goal 11). To meet goal 5, we have a very simple rule: anything that is indented beyond the start of the list marker belongs in the list item. 1. list item > block quote inside item 1 2. second item In commonmark, this would be parsed as two separate lists with a block quote between them, because the block quote is not indented far enough. What kept us from using this simple rule in commonmark was indented code blocks. If list items are going to contain an indented code block, we need to know at what column to start counting the indentation, so we fixed on the column that makes the list look best (the first column of non-space content after the marker): 1.
Read the full README on GitHub

What Hacker News says

29 sources
Yeah a nice Rust or Go-based implementation of Asciidoc would be fantastic. Having to deal with Ruby and Gems is not fun. That's a mountain of work though and even if there is a spec, at this point it's complex enough and the Ruby implementation is enough of a de facto spec that I'm doubtful you'll ever make it past "this behaves differently to Asciidoctor" territory. Btw a more recent alternative is https://github.com/jgm/djot which actually does have multiple implementations and looks like a way better option than Markdown, but maybe not as powerful as Asciidoctor still. I haven't tried it.
In I prefer rST to Markdown
The motivation for this choice is not "convenient parsing" but deeper considerations of language design. As explained at https://github.com/jgm/djot#rationale , this choice follows from two desiderata: (1) "The syntax should compose uniformly, in the following sense: if a sequence of lines has a certain meaning outside a list item or block quote, it should have the same meaning inside it." (2) "The syntax should be friendly to hard-wrapping: hard-wrapping a paragraph should not lead to different interpretations, e.g. when a number followed by a period ends up at the beginning of a line." The document explains the compromise we made in commonmark to avoid the need for blank lines. Djot tries to be more principled.
In Djot: A light markup language by the creator of Pandoc and CommonMark

Showing the 15 most recent of 29 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.