# 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:** 61

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![vitaly](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/vitaly/32/396_2.png) [@vitaly](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/vitaly)\
**Post date:** [November 6, 2014, 8:53am UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/what-could-a-spoiler-tag-extension-look-like/767/61 "2014-11-06T08:53:27Z")

</div>

> [@chrisalley](#):
>
> extensions are not the priority over the next six months.

There are no need to blindly follow abstract principles, if it cost nothing to satisfy more people in shorter time by swapping order of 2 steps. I’ve explained above, that 1/2 of DIV spec (for fenced style) needs very few work for acceptance.

May be i have wrong estimate about efforts. But at least, nobody said the opposite.

> [@chrisalley](#):
>
> My suggestion is that you use raw HTML in the meantime which is already included in the spec.

I would do it, but it’s not acceptable. @chrisalley, i’m not going to push anyone for making fast decisions. I just share info, to better plan my own work. Because if alternatives possible, i’ll select one, which is better for CommonMark.

---

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