Revision: 20200
Updated Code
at November 9, 2009 13:06 by wizard04
Updated Code
For some reason, Snipplr has decided not to HTML-encode <code><</code> and <code>></code> signs (i.e., replacing them with `<` and `>`) that a user inputs into a comment box, and instead strips anything that looks like a tag from the comment entirely. So, if you enter something like <code>`<div>test</div>`</code> in the comment box, you would expect to see <code><div>test</div></code> in the post but you would actually end up with `test`. The exceptions that I've found are `<b>`, `<i>`, `<em>`, `<strong>`, and `<code>` tags. The only reliable way to get around this odd implementation is to use the code tag with its content already HTML-encoded, just like you would if you were writing your own HTML. So entering something like <code><code>&lt;div&gt;test&lt;/div&gt;</code></code> will give the expected result <code><div>test</div></code>. Note that you will also have to replace the back-ticks with ``` FYI, here is the code I used to create this description itself. The same code is entered in the first comment below (note the difference where the back-ticks are used to surround this: `<div>test</div>`).
Revision: 20199
Updated Code
at November 9, 2009 13:05 by wizard04
Updated Code
For some reason, Snipplr has decided not to HTML-encode <code><</code> and <code>></code> signs (i.e., replacing them with `<` and `>`) that a user inputs into a comment box, and instead strips anything that looks like a tag from the comment entirely. So, if you enter something like <code>`<div>test</div>`</code> in the comment box, you would expect to see <code><div>test</div></code> in the post but you would actually end up with `test`. The exceptions that I've found are `<b>`, `<i>`, `<em>`, `<strong>`, and `<code>` tags. The only reliable way to get around this odd implementation is to use the code tag with its content already HTML-encoded, just like you would if you were writing your own HTML. So entering something like <code><code>&lt;div&gt;test&lt;/div&gt;</code></code> will give the expected result <code><div>test</div></code>. Note that you will also have to replace the back-ticks with ``` FYI, here is the code I used to create this description itself. The same code is entered in the first comment below (note the difference where the back-ticks are used to surround this: `<div>foo & bar</div>`).
Revision: 20198
Updated Code
at November 9, 2009 13:02 by wizard04
Updated Code
For some reason, Snipplr has decided not to HTML-encode <code><</code> and <code>></code> signs (i.e., replacing them with `<` and `>`) that a user inputs into a comment box, and instead strips anything that looks like a tag from the comment entirely. So, if you enter something like <code>`<div>test</div>`</code> in the comment box, you would expect to see `<div>test</div>` in the post but you would actually end up with `test`. The exceptions that I've found are `<b>`, `<i>`, `<em>`, `<strong>`, and `<code>` tags. The only reliable way to get around this odd implementation is to use the code tag with its content already HTML-encoded, just like you would if you were writing your own HTML. So entering something like <code><code>&lt;div&gt;test&lt;/div&gt;</code></code> will give the expected result <code><div>test</div></code>. Note that you will also have to replace the back-ticks with ``` FYI, here is the code I used to create this description itself. The same code is entered in the first comment below (note the difference where the back-ticks are used to surround the `<div>`).
Revision: 20197
Updated Code
at November 9, 2009 13:01 by wizard04
Updated Code
For some reason, Snipplr has decided not to HTML-encode <code><</code> and <code>></code> signs (i.e., replacing them with `<` and `>`) that a user inputs into a comment box, and instead strips anything that looks like a tag from the comment entirely. So, if you enter something like ``<div>test</div>`` in the comment box, you would expect to see `<div>test</div>` in the post but you would actually end up with `test`. The exceptions that I've found are `<b>`, `<i>`, `<em>`, `<strong>`, and `<code>` tags. The only reliable way to get around this odd implementation is to use the code tag with its content already HTML-encoded, just like you would if you were writing your own HTML. So entering something like `<code>&lt;div&gt;test&lt;/div&gt;</code>` will give the expected result <code><div>test</div></code>. Note that you will also have to replace the back-ticks with ``` FYI, here is the code I used to create this description itself. The same code is entered in the first comment below (note the difference where the back-ticks are used to surround the `<div>`).
Revision: 20196
Updated Code
at November 9, 2009 12:54 by wizard04
Updated Code
For some reason, Snipplr has decided not to HTML-encode <code><</code> and <code>></code> signs (i.e., replacing them with `<` and `>`) that a user inputs into a comment box, and instead strips anything that looks like a tag from the comment entirely. So, if you enter something like `<div>test</div>`, you would expect to see `<div>test</div>` but you would actually end up with `test`. The exceptions that I've found are `<b>`, `<i>`, `<em>`, `<strong>`, and `<code>` tags. The only reliable way to get around this odd implementation is to use the code tag with its content already HTML-encoded, just like you would if you were writing your own HTML. So entering something like <code>&lt;div&gt;test&lt;/div&gt;</code> will give the expected result <code><div>test</div></code>. Note that you will also have to replace the back-ticks with ``` FYI, here is the code I used to create this description itself. The same code is entered in the first comment below (note the difference where the back-ticks are used to surround the `<div>`).
Revision: 20195
Initial Code
Initial URL
Initial Description
Initial Title
Initial Tags
Initial Language
at November 9, 2009 11:57 by wizard04
Initial Code
asdf
Initial URL
Initial Description
For some reason, Snipplr has decided not to HTML-encode <code><</code> and <code>></code> signs (i.e., replacing them with `<` and `>`) that a user inputs into a comment box, and instead strips anything that looks like a tag from the comment entirely. So, if you enter something like <code>`<div>test</div>`</code> in the comment box, you would expect to see <code><div>test</div></code> in the post but you would actually end up with `test`. The exceptions that I've found are `<b>`, `<i>`, `<em>`, `<strong>`, and `<code>` tags. The only reliable way to get around this odd implementation is to use the code tag with its content already HTML-encoded, just like you would if you were writing your own HTML. So entering something like <code><code>&lt;div&gt;test&lt;/div&gt;</code></code> will give the expected result <code><div>test</div></code>. Note that you will also have to replace the back-ticks with ``` FYI, here is the code I used to create this description itself. The same code is entered in the first comment below (note the difference where the back-ticks are used to surround this: `<div>test</div>`).
Initial Title
--Snipplr-- Workaround: Code in Comments
Initial Tags
html
Initial Language
Other