docs: fix < and > rendering in search results

[danielzsh]

Closes #10248

Before submitting the PR, please make sure you do the following

• It's really useful if your PR references an issue where it is discussed ahead of time. In many cases, features are absent for a reason. For large changes, please create an RFC: https://github.com/sveltejs/rfcs
• Prefix your PR title with feat:, fix:, chore:, or docs:.
• This message body should clearly illustrate what problems it solves.
• Ideally, include a test that fails without this PR but passes with it.

Tests and linting

• Run the tests with pnpm test and lint the project with pnpm lint

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: a65b68a

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[PuruVJ]

Hmm this doesnt seem right. There is a reason i converted the headings to this format, cant remember what it was though.

Could you try one thing: delete node_modules/.snippets folder and build the site again?

Lemme know if that gives any errors

[danielzsh]

Hm, I can't run pnpm build since I believe it requires some env variables (im getting an error about supabaseKey), but after deleting .snippets, the < and > will still appear when running pnpm dev.

There is a reason i converted the headings to this format, cant remember what it was though.

So does this mean this line (line 65) should actually also have used < and > as well? I copied the formatting from it since it was the only link that was properly displaying in the searchbox.

[PuruVJ]

I just remembered: &gt change was done at a point where the custom sanitisation logic wasn't as robust and required a workaround. Then later it was made more robust, and we forgot to come back to this part.

Approved!