# Highlights, Strikeout, Underlines, Spoilers

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/highlights-strikeout-underlines-spoilers/825>\
**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:** 1\
**Showing post:** 11

<div class="post-metadata">

**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 20, 2014, 10:38am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/highlights-strikeout-underlines-spoilers/825/11 "2014-10-20T10:38:47Z")

</div>

Well the biggest concern that other people had with `---` for strikethrough (proposed before) that made me add `>><<` is that they said that there is a danger that the syntax might clash with the horizontal rule.

Also how do you tell if the person wants a trailing space, e.g. `=== this has a trailing highlight===`. But then again… unlike [reviewing markup syntax](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/reviewing-markups/824/10)… it is unlikely that missing a space to be a big deal. Well I guess it can work, if we adopt the same rule as the bold syntax, and require no space. This is so we can deal with people typing `stuff like --- as an em dash`.

## Amended Proposal

```
--striked through text--
==Highlighted Text==
__Underlined Text__
>>! Spoiler Text Here !<<

```

for empty underlined fields (e.g. for signatures)

```
>> ________________ <<

```

edit: I think to be on the safe side, we should require three characters  
edit2: scratched that… its annoying typing 3 chars actually. Hope it’s still safe.

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/highlights-strikeout-underlines-spoilers/825)._