# Block Directives

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/block-directives/802>\
**Category:** Extensions\
**Created:** [October 10, 2014, 3:04am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/block-directives/802 "2014-10-10T03:04:59Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 49

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![vitaly](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/vitaly/32/396_2.png) [@vitaly](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/vitaly)\
**Post date:** [November 29, 2014, 6:04pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/block-directives/802/49 "2014-11-29T18:04:57Z")

</div>

Can anyone summarize the most wanted syntax for fenced block containers?

Personally, i like this one:

```auto
:::name params
content
:::

```

As discussed in [What could a “spoiler tag” extension look like?](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/what-could-a-spoiler-tag-extension-look-like/767) , fenced-like principle is good for such blocks. But fence spec says, we should not use backtick on the same string. If we proparate rule to “: should not be used”, collision with params syntax possible.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/block-directives/802)._