# Expanding multiple definition behavior

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/expanding-multiple-definition-behavior/3212>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [July 23, 2019, 8:35am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/expanding-multiple-definition-behavior/3212 "2019-07-23T08:35:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![stuartpb](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/stuartpb/32/155_2.png) [@stuartpb](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/stuartpb)\
**Post date:** [July 23, 2019, 8:50am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/expanding-multiple-definition-behavior/3212/2 "2019-07-23T08:50:57Z")

</div>

(And yes, by arguing for a prescriptive change like this to the spec, this means I’m doing a complete 180 from [the hardline-descriptivist position I originally held when CommonMark was first launched five years ago](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/what-changed-in-commonmark/15/3). Lesson learned: if you’re going to be asking every implementation to make _some_ changes in order to conform to a first-of-its-kind formal specification, it’s worth sneaking in minor cleanups that’ll apply for all of them.)

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/expanding-multiple-definition-behavior/3212)._