# Consider rewriting the spec in a non-declarative style

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/consider-rewriting-the-spec-in-a-non-declarative-style/571>\
**Category:** Spec\
**Created:** [September 12, 2014, 10:26am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/consider-rewriting-the-spec-in-a-non-declarative-style/571 "2014-09-12T10:26:13Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Burt\_Harris](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/burt_harris/32/368_2.png) [@Burt\_Harris](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/Burt_Harris)\
**Post date:** [September 14, 2014, 3:50pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/consider-rewriting-the-spec-in-a-non-declarative-style/571/6 "2014-09-14T15:50:15Z")

</div>

Thanks for updating the title of the topic.

I’m not sure everyone understands the reason the way the spec written this way. I tried to explain in reply to a different posting [normative-informative](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/normative-informative/443/3). Please have a look at that and see if it helps. Also please look at [improving the introduction](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/improving-the-introduction/595) to see if that might address your concerns.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/consider-rewriting-the-spec-in-a-non-declarative-style/571)._