[jncraton]

You are right that the concept of "safe" is nebulous, but the goal here is specifically to be XSS-safe [1]. Elements or properties that could allow scripts to execute are removed. This functionality lives in the user agent and prevents adding unsafe elements to the DOM itself, so it should be easier to get correct than a string-to-string sanitizer. The logic of "is the element currently being added to the DOM a <script>" is fundamentally easier to get right than "does this HTML string include a script tag".

[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Element/set...

[entuno]

It's certainly an improvement over people trying to homebrew their own sanitisers. But that distinction of being XSS-safe is a potentially subtle one, and could end up being dangerous if people don't carefully consider whether XSS-safe is good enough when they're handling arbitrary users input like that.

[intrasight]

Also has made me nervous for years that there's been no schema against which one can validate HTML. "You want to validate? Paste your URL into the online validation tool."

[Dylan16807]

This help? https://github.com/validator/validator

But for html snippets you can pretty much just check that tags follow a couple simple rules between <> and that they're closed or not closed correctly.

[intrasight]

That app does look helpful!