Generic Directive Extension List

Generic Directives is still in active discussion in http://talk.commonmark.org/t/generic-directives-plugins-syntax . But for brainstorming purposes, here is some possible extensions to support, or at least adhere to if not included.

It might look like !extensionName[](){} for inline

and for block

!!!extensionName[](){}
...BlockContent...
!!!

---

Below is a list of extensions and it's purpose.

• extensionName :

• Purpose:

• [] : contentField

• () : argumentField

• {} : keyValueField

• **** :

• Purpose:

• [] :

• () :

• {} :

---

• default : default extension

• Purpose: used if no extension name is specified. Reads url, and chooses the appropriate extensions. E.g. .png will be embedded using the image extension

• [] :

• () : Reads the url name to determine filetype

• {} :

• image : embed image

• Purpose: embeds image in page

• [] : image alt text

• () : image url

• {} : width="width of image", height="height of image"

• TOC : Table of contents

• Purpose: Embed a table of content, based on header names.

• [] : Title of TOC, could default to "Table of contents"

• () :

• {} :

This seems forced into the provided syntax. Why is this not a block element? Why is the title provided inside the syntax as opposed to just being text prior to the "TOC" tag? - nexussays

Because unless the file can be changed by processor, it's probably safer to just autogenerate the TOC everytime it is rendered. But I don't see any reason it can't be a block directive, just needs a 'generated at date tag' - mofosyne

• spoiler : Hides spoilers
• Purpose: Informs display to hide content, unless user wants to be shown the spoilers
• [] : Spoiler Text
• () :
• {} :

This usage is completely different than every other tag which wraps text (\, *, **, etc) which would make it both unconventional and very difficult for users. - nexussays I say it's pretty obvious when it say's spoiler. And syntactically [] means content. Don't want to pollute the core syntax. -mofosyne

• fig : figure
• Purpose: create a figure instance
• [] : <figname> name of figure
• () :
• {} : type="numeric/letter/figname"
• Block Directive Content : Content of figure

How is this semantically different to a creator than an image and some text? How would it co-exist with existing syntax for images, and code blocks, both of which are mentioned in the spec as uses for the <figure> tag. What would this resolve to in non-HTML implementations? (ie - What "is" a figure?) - nexussays

It's used in academia to indicate that a group of images, codes, statistics or data to be referenced in a report. It's used often in latex, and it's bloody annoying. -mofosyne

• ref : link to figure
• Purpose: link to figure created from 'fig'
• [] :
• () : figname
• {} : type="override numeric/letter/figname"

What is this providing beyond duplicating the link syntax? - nexussays

Yea I agree we should probably think about using the []: somehow (if I'm correct that it can act as a figure) -mofosyne

• asciiArt : renders ASCII art

• Purpose: Lets parser knows that the content is to be treated as ASCII art. Output is more flexible.

• [] :

• () :

• {} : renderAs='vector/bitmap/ASCII', width="width of image", height="height of image"

• Block: ASCII diagram

• note: rendering could be via taking the average density of each character split as a grid of 3*3 pixel per character.

• note: Do this but in reverse http://mattmik.com/articles/ascii/ascii.html

• asciiDiagram : renders technical ASCII diagram

• Purpose: Lets parser knows that the content is to be treated as ASCII diagram. (Which unlike ASCII art, has well defined lines, and boxes, text, and should be treated like a technical drawing. E.g. no smoothing or blurring).

• [] :

• () :

• {} : renderAs='vector/bitmap/ASCII', width="width of image", height="height of image"

• Block: ASCII diagram

• note: could use https://github.com/Frimkron/Ascidia to render it in a pretty manner.