# What could a "spoiler tag" extension look like?

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/what-could-a-spoiler-tag-extension-look-like/767>\
**Category:** Extensions\
**Created:** [October 6, 2014, 4:05am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/what-could-a-spoiler-tag-extension-look-like/767 "2014-10-06T04:05:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 58

<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:** [November 5, 2014, 12:13pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/what-could-a-spoiler-tag-extension-look-like/767/58 "2014-11-05T12:13:40Z")

</div>

Agreed. This discussion about `<div>` block syntax sounds related to [Content Block/Inline Syntax](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/content-block-inline-syntax/815/7)

I haven’t seen any objection for fenced `:::` as the `<div>` block syntax. And I think it’s also a good candidate for fencing generic detectives that can fall back as normal content.

Since github does (where ‘ruby’ is a css class name I think):

````
```ruby
require 'redcarpet'
markdown = Redcarpet.new("Hello World!")
puts markdown.to_html
```

````

then a direct eqv using the spoiler example for div would be:

```
:::spoiler
spoiler content here
:::

```

to which we can prettify it like so (perhaps classnames should have no spacing):

```
:::::::spoiler::::::::
spoiler content here
::::::::::::::::::::::

```

What do you think about this approach @vitaly ?

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/what-could-a-spoiler-tag-extension-look-like/767)._