Replace markdown with HTML markup

One of the earlier commits replaced HTML <code> tags with markdown backticks, which are not rendering the code blocks correctly on the website.

website/templates/features/Builder.html

@@ -66,7 +66,7 @@
 		</p><p>
 			Now that the "method" mode is clear, putting a <code>@Builder</code> annotation on a constructor functions similarly; effectively, constructors are just static methods that have a special syntax to invoke them: Their 'return type' is the class they construct, and their type parameters are the same as the type parameters of the class itself.
 		</p><p>
-			Finally, applying <code>@Builder</code> to a class is as if you added <code>@AllArgsConstructor(access = AccessLevel.PACKAGE)</code> to the class and applied the <code>@Builder</code> annotation to this all-args-constructor. This only works if you haven't written any explicit constructors yourself or allowed lombok to create one such as with <code>@NoArgsConstructor</code>. If you do have an explicit constructor, put the <code>@Builder</code> annotation on the constructor instead of on the class. Note that if you put both `@Value` and `@Builder` on a class, the package-private constructor that `@Builder` wants to generate 'wins' and suppresses the constructor that `@Value` wants to make.
+			Finally, applying <code>@Builder</code> to a class is as if you added <code>@AllArgsConstructor(access = AccessLevel.PACKAGE)</code> to the class and applied the <code>@Builder</code> annotation to this all-args-constructor. This only works if you haven't written any explicit constructors yourself or allowed lombok to create one such as with <code>@NoArgsConstructor</code>. If you do have an explicit constructor, put the <code>@Builder</code> annotation on the constructor instead of on the class. Note that if you put both <code>@Value</code> and <code>@Builder</code> on a class, the package-private constructor that <code>@Builder</code> wants to generate 'wins' and suppresses the constructor that <code>@Value</code> wants to make.
 		</p><p>
 			If using <code>@Builder</code> to generate builders to produce instances of your own class (this is always the case unless adding <code>@Builder</code> to a method that doesn't return your own type), you can use <code>@Builder(toBuilder = true)</code> to also generate an instance method in your class called <code>toBuilder()</code>; it creates a new builder that starts out with all the values of this instance. You can put the <code>@Builder.ObtainVia</code> annotation on the parameters (in case of a constructor or method) or fields (in case of <code>@Builder</code> on a type) to indicate alternative means by which the value for that field/parameter is obtained from this instance. For example, you can specify a method to be invoked: <code>@Builder.ObtainVia(method = "calculateFoo")</code>.
 		</p><p>
@@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ <h3 id="jackson"><a name="jackson">With Jackson</a></h3>
 			You can use <code>@Builder</code> for copy constructors: <code>foo.toBuilder().build()</code> makes a shallow clone. Consider suppressing the generating of the
 			<code>builder</code> method if you just want this functionality, by using: <code>@Builder(toBuilder = true, builderMethodName = "")</code>.
 		</p><p>
-			Due to a peculiar way javac processes static imports, trying to do a non-star static import of the static <code>builder()</code> method won't work. Either use a star static import: `import static TypeThatHasABuilder.*;` or don't statically import the <code>builder</code> method.
+			Due to a peculiar way javac processes static imports, trying to do a non-star static import of the static <code>builder()</code> method won't work. Either use a star static import: <code>import static TypeThatHasABuilder.*;</code> or don't statically import the <code>builder</code> method.
 		</p><p>
 			If setting the access level to <code>PROTECTED</code>, all methods generated inside the builder class are actually generated as <code>public</code>; the meaning of the
 			<code>protected</code> keyword is different inside the inner class, and the precise behavior that <code>PROTECTED</code> would indicate (access by any source in the same package is allowed, as well as any subclasses <em>from the outer class, marked with <code>@Builder</code></em> is not possible, and marking the inner members <code>public</code> is as close as we can get.