# Highlights, Strikeout, Underlines, Spoilers **URL:** \ **Category:** Extensions\ **Created:** [October 18, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/highlights-strikeout-underlines-spoilers/825 "2014-10-18T14:53:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**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 24, 2014, 7:25am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/highlights-strikeout-underlines-spoilers/825/21 "2014-10-24T07:25:46Z")
Your proposal sounds almost good. One concern is that your triple ` ***italic+bold*** ` is already defined as **_italic+bold_**. Is there anyway you can get **underline+bold** without overriding italic+bold ? Like say a 4th level emphasis. At least I do not see people needing italic+underline, or italic+bold+underline, just only bold+underline is needed while preserving italic+bold. Though ` ****4th level emph**** ` is a bit clunky. But is not too bad. ---
**Author:** ![chrisalley](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/chrisalley/32/906_2.png) [@chrisalley](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/chrisalley)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2014, 12:44pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/highlights-strikeout-underlines-spoilers/825/22 "2014-10-24T12:44:55Z")
Bold and italic are just the default styles that web browsers give those elements, but `` is no more defined as italic than links are defined as blue. Sure links are blue by default, but many sites adopt a different style. Let me emphasise the point here again: the styling of content is _completely separate_ from the meaning of the content. Have a look at the CSS Zen Garden site I linked to in the previous post if you’re still unclear about how this separation works in practice. ---
**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 24, 2014, 12:47pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/highlights-strikeout-underlines-spoilers/825/23 "2014-10-24T12:47:36Z")
Fair enough, I rest my point. It’s not that big of a deal for me. But hopefully it won’t be too much of a sticking point for the general population. So we shall keep highlights, strikeouts, and spoilers, but no underlines. aye? ---
**Author:** ![chrisalley](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/chrisalley/32/906_2.png) [@chrisalley](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/chrisalley)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 2:44am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/highlights-strikeout-underlines-spoilers/825/24 "2014-10-25T02:44:25Z")
> [@mofosyne](#): > > So we shall keep highlights, strikeouts, and spoilers, but no underlines. aye? There are good use cases for spoilers and highlights, potentially strikethrough too. I suggest this topic is closed since there are already individual topics for each and there is clearly no generic syntax. It is confusing to spread the discussion over multiple topics. - [Spoilers](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/what-could-a-spoiler-tag-extension-look-like/767) - [Strikethrough](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/strikeout-threw-out-strikethrough-strikes-out-throughout/820) - [Highlights](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/highlighting-text-with-the-mark-element/840) - [Underlines](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/feature-request-underline-text/343) ---
**Author:** ![codinghorror](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/codinghorror/32/2_2.png) [@codinghorror](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/codinghorror)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2014, 5:10am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/highlights-strikeout-underlines-spoilers/825/25 "2014-10-25T05:10:59Z")
[Previous page](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/highlights-strikeout-underlines-spoilers/825.md?page=1)