# Generic directives/plugins syntax

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/generic-directives-plugins-syntax/444>\
**Category:** Extensions\
**Created:** [September 6, 2014, 9:50am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/generic-directives-plugins-syntax/444 "2014-09-06T09:50:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 102

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mofosyne](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/mofosyne/32/1438_2.png) [@mofosyne](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/mofosyne)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2014, 2:48am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/generic-directives-plugins-syntax/444/102 "2014-10-10T02:48:57Z")

</div>

I agree. Inline discussion is stabilising around the `![](){}` vs `@[](){}` but there is still some debate around block syntax. There should be a separate discussion on block syntax.

[http://talk.commonmark.org/t/block-directives/802](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/block-directives/802)

* * *

nexussays: It’s a directive, not a function. It only specifies intent of users, not how it looks at the output. So the question about HTML element output in this context makes no sense, because it ignores other context like pdf or latex.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/generic-directives-plugins-syntax/444)._