# Can highly compatible implementations in other languages also become a part of CommonMark?

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/can-highly-compatible-implementations-in-other-languages-also-become-a-part-of-commonmark/467>\
**Category:** Implementation\
**Created:** [September 7, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/can-highly-compatible-implementations-in-other-languages-also-become-a-part-of-commonmark/467 "2014-09-07T15:34:31Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![codinghorror](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/codinghorror/32/2_2.png) [@codinghorror](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/codinghorror)\
**Post date:** [September 7, 2014, 11:56pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/can-highly-compatible-implementations-in-other-languages-also-become-a-part-of-commonmark/467/2 "2014-09-07T23:56:40Z")

</div>

I think any implementation that passes the tests embedded in the spec is “certified” CommonMark compatible.

It’s simply a matter of making the tests fully complete. What we have now is good, but it can always be improved!

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/can-highly-compatible-implementations-in-other-languages-also-become-a-part-of-commonmark/467)._