# Sorely confused about "Extensions"

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/sorely-confused-about-extensions/1872>\
**Category:** Extensions\
**Created:** [September 23, 2015, 10:09am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/sorely-confused-about-extensions/1872 "2015-09-23T10:09:58Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Crissov](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/crissov/32/1455_2.png) [@Crissov](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/Crissov)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2015, 2:25pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/sorely-confused-about-extensions/1872/4 "2015-09-23T14:25:48Z")

</div>

I think the extension point for your bug tracker syntax would be bogus URL schemes, e.g. `[App crashes](bug://CM-2345)`. These could be handled easily by either a pre-processor or a post-processor or by a custom plugin to your CM parser. I’m not quite sure how I would like Discourse to extend the existing quote syntax using the `>` line prefix, maybe something like this:

```
> Currently the focus is on completing the core spec,
> with extensions coming later
-- [chrisalley](topic:1872#2)

```

It wouldn’t make much sense to limit the discussion here to addons for the reference implementations. Since CM tries to standardize MD it makes sense to also try to match third-party extensions as much as possible, not invent yet another syntax. The [extensions in many flavors](https://github.com/jgm/CommonMark/wiki/Deployed-Extensions) are actually quite compatible – on the surface at least, they may differ in the ugly details.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/sorely-confused-about-extensions/1872)._