36

Please consider implementing the request for some sort of a spoiler markdown using the following syntax:

why did we trust <spoiler>rchern</spoiler> ? WHY OH GOD WHY?

<spoiler>
The cake is a lie.
</spoiler>

I propose <spoiler> over the modified blockquote syntax >! proposed by Nick because:

  • a <spoiler> tag can easily be inlined; the >! syntax cannot.
  • a <spoiler> tag can easily be ignored when rendered through external services that don't actively support it
  • a <spoiler> tag can be parsed with jQuery, which is a great and does all things™
Improve this question
11
  • I'm not entirely serious about the jQuery bit :)
    – badp
    Nov 6 '10 at 9:36
  • 4
    Nick's comment: It would be nice if the format could fall back on standard markdown if someone does not have this feature: e.g., > this is blockquote and >! this is spoiler. Parsers which don't understand spoilers will just show it as a blockquote with leading ! (Just for future reference, as linking to comments is not officially supported and even upvoted comments might be hidden and hence non-linkable.)
    – Arjan
    Nov 6 '10 at 10:55
  • spoiler
    – mario
    Nov 6 '10 at 10:59
  • @mario: spoiler
    – kennytm
    Nov 6 '10 at 12:32
  • Use ruby on rails and your website will literally build itself!™ Oh wait, that joke's not funny anymore...
    – Gordon Gustafson
    Nov 6 '10 at 15:27
  • 2
    Note that the current Markdown implementation, when rendered on SE sites, still allows for jQuery magic given its CSS class: <blockquote class="spoiler">.
    – Arjan
    Feb 12 '11 at 13:53
  • Since imp shouldn't be status-completed?
    – bobobobo
    May 2 '11 at 0:58
  • 1
    @bobobo Not in the form I proposed it with.
    – badp
    May 2 '11 at 6:58
  • possible duplicate of Add markdown support for hidden-until-you-click text (aka spoilers)
    – ChrisF Mod
    May 7 '11 at 21:13
  • 1
    Not a duplicate, @Chris. That post just wants spoiler functionality, but this one wants a specific syntax that is different than the current implementation.
    – Pops
    May 9 '11 at 18:17
  • @Pop - fair enough, just let the flag expire.#
    – ChrisF Mod
    May 9 '11 at 19:30
19

This has been implemented in spirit, but as the >! syntax instead. We really don't want to be in the business of making up new HTML tags; it's already confusing enough mixing HTML with Markdown arbitrarily.

The syntax is 

>! This is spoiler text

Examples

This is spoiler text

This is not yet reflected in the preview pane.

Essentially, a blockquote where each line begins with a ! will be a spoiler.

Spoilers have the same text color as background color, but can be revealed by hovering over them (or selecting the text).

Improve this answer
7
  • can that be extended to chatmarkdown by any chance? Us Talkative folks would like to have it ;) ... lemme guess, 6-8 weeks?
    – jcolebrand
    Dec 3 '10 at 3:50
  • 3
    There should probably be some sort of indication in the box that you need to mouse over to see hidden text, or users will just be confused (or posters will need to explain it every time it gets used)
    – Michael Mrozek
    Dec 3 '10 at 4:26
  • 10
    @michael if there are complaints this is "too hard to use" I will just pull it. It's a SPOILER TAG. Bad usability is THE POINT.
    – Jeff Atwood
    Dec 3 '10 at 4:29
  • Well, I was rather surprised you implemented it at all :)
    – Michael Mrozek
    Dec 3 '10 at 5:11
  • 2
    There are several issues with the >! markdown, including a lack of support for inline spoilers and bulleted lists.
    – Stevoisiak
    Aug 7 '17 at 18:25
  • 2
    This answer seems largely an explanation of how the spoiler tag is implemented rather than a consideration of why the implementation is preferred. Even the claim that it's "already confusing enough mixing HTML with markdown" would be great to hear considered more deeply in addition to other justifications for the implementation..
    – Praxiteles
    Jun 21 '18 at 12:39
  • can spoiler tags be used on an embedded YT video?
    – RedCaio
    Mar 22 at 4:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .