This answer came up on my radar. The first thing I noticed about it was its inappropriate use of inline code formatting for something that is not code. Naturally, I tried to edit it:

  Links to jsfiddle.net must be accompanied by code.

FOILED! Turns out, the answer is actually a link-only answer to an external resource, which we've already decided is unacceptable and should be blocked. Great, I can support that.

But, if we're going to try, it should not be this trivial to beat.

You see, now I don't know if this was just one of those users who doesn't know what code formatting is used for, or if (s)he was using this to work around the smackdown put on link-only answers. If it was the former, they didn't even get a chance to ignore the good advice we're providing!

If you're posting a link to a jsFiddle, you're going to need block-formatted code; inline code simply won't do it. So why don't we check for that? When would inline code ever be enough?

  • 1
    If we'll do this, such bugs will start popping. Jul 28, 2013 at 12:24
  • Geez, why do you need a jsFiddle demo for that? @sha Jul 28, 2013 at 12:24
  • Don't shoot the messenger, I'm neutral on this one. :) Jul 28, 2013 at 12:25
  • Related: stackoverflow.com/revisions/17898428/1
    – Matt
    Jul 28, 2013 at 12:37
  • 1
    Maybe we shouldn't allow http in the rendered copy? It'd teach new users not to dump a link saying here it is.
    – Cole Tobin
    Jul 28, 2013 at 17:32
  • @Cole Then you'd just get people posting links that aren't actually clickable. E.g.: jsfiddle.net/<number> What would that improve? Jul 29, 2013 at 10:41
  • @CodyGray good point. What if it was detected that there was an http, it would require low rep users to make a Markdown link?
    – Cole Tobin
    Jul 29, 2013 at 18:09


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .