fix: self-closing script tag fixed for TinyMceEditor

[marslanabdulrauf]

Related Ticket (internal)

https://github.com/mitodl/hq/issues/7208

Description

In some scenarios the script tag is automatically enclosing other html content when used in a text component. Take for example this simple piece of html:

<script type="text/javascript" src="/asset-v1:TestX+8.13_testing+2025_Spring+type@asset+block@print_styles.js"/>
<p>This is content</p>

if that is put into a text component using the HTML editor, then problems arise, see screenshots:

Basically what happens is the editor is deciding that the script tag needs closed, it then saves the html as:

<p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="/asset-v1:TestX+8.13_testing+2025_Spring+type@asset+block@print_styles.js">
<p>This is content</p></script>
</p>

Testing instructions

1. Follow the steps from Description and you shouldn't see any malformed HTML now instead you should see This is content in the editor

Best Practices Checklist

We're trying to move away from some deprecated patterns in this codebase. Please
check if your PR meets these recommendations before asking for a review:

• Any new files are using TypeScript (.ts, .tsx).
• Deprecated propTypes, defaultProps, and injectIntl patterns are not used in any new or modified code.
• Tests should use the helpers in src/testUtils.tsx (specifically initializeMocks)
• Do not add new fields to the Redux state/store. Use React Context to share state among multiple components.
• Use React Query to load data from REST APIs. See any apiHooks.ts in this repo for examples.
• All new i18n messages in messages.ts files have a description for translators to use.
• Imports avoid using ../. To import from parent folders, use @src, e.g. import { initializeMocks } from '@src/testUtils'; instead of from '../../../../testUtils'

[openedx-webhooks]

Thanks for the pull request, @marslanabdulrauf!

This repository is currently maintained by @bradenmacdonald.

Once you've gone through the following steps feel free to tag them in a comment and let them know that your changes are ready for engineering review.

🔘 Get product approval

If you haven't already, check this list to see if your contribution needs to go through the product review process.

• If it does, you'll need to submit a product proposal for your contribution, and have it reviewed by the Product Working Group.
  • This process (including the steps you'll need to take) is documented here.
• If it doesn't, simply proceed with the next step.

🔘 Provide context

To help your reviewers and other members of the community understand the purpose and larger context of your changes, feel free to add as much of the following information to the PR description as you can:

• Dependencies

  This PR must be merged before / after / at the same time as ...

• Blockers

  This PR is waiting for OEP-1234 to be accepted.

• Timeline information

  This PR must be merged by XX date because ...

• Partner information

  This is for a course on edx.org.

• Supporting documentation
• Relevant Open edX discussion forum threads

🔘 Get a green build

If one or more checks are failing, continue working on your changes until this is no longer the case and your build turns green.

---

Where can I find more information?

If you'd like to get more details on all aspects of the review process for open source pull requests (OSPRs), check out the following resources:

• Overview of Review Process for Community Contributions
• Pull Request Status Guide
• Making changes to your pull request

When can I expect my changes to be merged?

Our goal is to get community contributions seen and reviewed as efficiently as possible.

However, the amount of time that it takes to review and merge a PR can vary significantly based on factors such as:

• The size and impact of the changes that it introduces
• The need for product review
• Maintenance status of the parent repository

💡 As a result it may take up to several weeks or months to complete a review and merge your PR.

[bradenmacdonald]

A self-closing script tag is not valid in HTML 5 (and meaningless in HTML4), and is only valid in XHTML if it is served with the correct MIME type from the server, which our XBlocks probably aren't. So I don't see why we would try to support this. <script> tags intentionally allow HTML/text to be inside, to be rendered when the user has JavaScript turned off. That's unlikely/impossible to happen in this case, but it's a reasonable assumption of the text editor that you're trying to specify the alternate text for the script tag ("This is content").

So: I don't think we want to encourage users to write self-closing tags, nor care what happens if they do.

However, if this is a change in behavior and is breaking existing course content, that would be a different story.