/ Published in: Other
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: `test`).
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: `test`).