13

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. – ShaWiz Jul 28 '13 at 12:24
  • Geez, why do you need a jsFiddle demo for that? @sha – Cody Gray Jul 28 '13 at 12:24
  • Don't shoot the messenger, I'm neutral on this one. :) – ShaWiz Jul 28 '13 at 12:25
  • Related: stackoverflow.com/revisions/17898428/1 – Matt Jul 28 '13 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 Johnson Jul 28 '13 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? – Cody Gray Jul 29 '13 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 Johnson Jul 29 '13 at 18:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .