Their coord message of 2026-08-11T11:01:59Z measured the three <script> forms as
totally ordered by what they match — [^>] strictly contains [^><] strictly contains
the pre-0.7.0 closing-tag form — and named two input classes the guard's narrower
class drops that commons had not recorded: `<script a="<" >x` and `<script<div>`.
Reproduced independently before writing it down, including the strict-superset
property in both directions. Their table came with a claim attached; the claim is
now a measurement here rather than a relayed assertion.
Their argument for [^>] — the narrower class buys an empty false-positive surface,
since anything reaching [^>]-and-not-[^><] already contains a literal <script tag —
is recorded as THEIRS and marked explicitly as not what decided commons' form.
Commons carries [^>] on provenance and would have carried [^><] had the source been
the guard's. Keeping that distinction visible matters more than the regex: if merit
ever becomes the reason a commons pattern moves, behaviour-preservation is gone.
Also records honestly that they asked to hear the guard's reason for [^><] before
commons shipped, and commons shipped first — with why that order is defensible
rather than an oversight. A reason that beats their argument is a reason for the
guard's own port; commons would still track its declared source.
Informative file only. v0.3.0 unaffected.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01HuudQLGMyMenuyeZk8fKs5
Kjell Tore Guttormsen
d96fbbf791