Hi Christian,

Wonderful, many thanks! Works perfectly in 12.2, of course. And apologies for the noise, I hadn't even realised I was already one version behind...


Best,


Ron


On 04/02/2026 18:34, Christian Grün wrote:
Hi Ron,

Thanks for the detailed bug report. I am glad to report back that it has already been fixed in our latest 12.2 release [1,2].

Cheers,
Christian

[1] https://github.com/BaseXdb/basex/issues/2575
[2] https://basex.org/download/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Von:* ron.vdbranden--- via BaseX-Talk <[email protected]>
*Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 4. Februar 2026 18:05
*An:* BaseX <[email protected]>
*Betreff:* [basex-talk] BaseX-12.1: HTML 5.0 serialization difference

Hi,

I've noticed a serialization difference since updating to BaseX-12.1, and am wondering if this is intentional or not.

When serializing as HTML 5.0, the character escaping in <script> tags seems to be influenced by the presence of preceding <script> tags that are either empty or only contain collapsible whitespace:

  * when a <script> element follows a non-empty (or non-collapsible)
    <script> element, special characters like &, <, and > are
    unescaped in the output
     o
        input:
        <head>   <script><![CDATA[& < > ]]></script>   <script
        src="test">//</script>   <script>&amp; &lt; &gt;</script>
        </head> ! serialize(., map {"method":"html", "version":"5.0"})
     o
        output:
        <head>  <meta charset="UTF-8">  <script>& < > </script>
         <script src="test">//</script>  <script>& < ></script> </head>
  * when, however, a <script> element follows an empty (or
    collapsible) <script> element, special characters like &, <, and >
    are escaped in the output
     o
        input:
        <head>   <script><![CDATA[& < > ]]></script> *<script
        src="test"></script>*   <script>&amp; &lt; &gt;</script>
        </head> ! serialize(., map {"method":"html", "version":"5.0"})
     o
        output:
        <head>  <meta charset="UTF-8">  <script>& < > </script>
         <script src="test">//</script>  <script>*&amp; &lt;
        &gt;*</script> </head>

I'm wondering if this is intentional or a bug?

Best,

Ron

Reply via email to