What is necessary to get long-standing discussions actually formalized into CommonMark?

[chrisalley]

@Catija

the reason I’m asking here is because, at some point, there should be something that comes from the CommonMark Team/Community/Whoever that says - “we’ve reviewed this idea and discussed it and we don’t think it’s universal enough to include in our spec.”

There hasn’t been a movement for including additional features in the core CommonMark spec - tables, spoilers, etc are categorised under “Extensions” on this forum for a reason. So these features, if covered, would probably be seperate extension specs.

There’s some discussion of how to formalise extensions in this topic:

How to move ahead with extending CommonMark

Since there was some interest in making Tables the first CommonMark extension, there’s the question of how to proceed with extending CommonMark. @jgm writes: It might be worth starting with a feature that is less complex than tables as a proof of concept for how an extension spec could work. There’s the question of authorship and ownership for these extensions, e.g. would extensions be an official part of the project, hosted on the CommonMark website and GitHub repository, or created as a sep…