# Optional syntax

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/optional-syntax/515>\
**Category:** Spec\
**Created:** [September 8, 2014, 3:30pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/optional-syntax/515 "2014-09-08T15:30:20Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dajare](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/dajare/32/30_2.png) [@dajare](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/dajare)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2014, 7:52am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/optional-syntax/515/3 "2014-09-09T07:52:36Z")

</div>

> [@Jack\_Douglas](#):
>
> …I mean optional elements that are completely generic in terms of syntax like the rest of the spec, but optional.

Could we be running into a small (and, I expect, temporary) nomenclature _cul de sac_?

- Is “The Spec” _always_ going to be “The Spec”, that is, limited to the “canonical” Markdown markup?
- Will _all_ non-canonical elements, then, be in the domain of “[extension](http://talk.commonmark.org/category/extensions)”?
- So will there be two “specs”: CommonMark Core Spec + CommonMark Extended Spec? or just one “spec”, with a set of optional elements (is that what you’re envisaging, @Jack_Douglas?)?

Either way, the intention is to avoid proliferation of competing popular extensions (tables and footnotes being the most prominent) which is against the whole spirit of CommonMark, of course. So another way of thinking of my conundrum (and perhaps it’s only me!) is whether this thread is best categorized with “spec” or “extension”?

It would be good to have some clarity on this, even while the attention of [the core team is on the core spec](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/the-inevitable-markdownextra-topic/42/8), and justifiably so.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/optional-syntax/515)._