Azure-docs: Document What is Allowed (Tags, Attributes, etc)

[spottedmahn]

There is a subset of HTML that is allowed but that is not documented.

Reference: Can I use SVG within a customized the Azure AD B2C user interface?

---

Document Details

⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

• ID: 0b1a5dbe-3776-6cbf-41b1-a2b00dcfe95e
• Version Independent ID: 14bb0adf-b9d0-7f70-1d35-ba38e85e0f65
• Content: User interface (UI) customization in Azure Active Directory B2C
• Content Source: articles/active-directory-b2c/active-directory-b2c-reference-ui-customization.md
• Service: active-directory
• Product: unspecified
• GitHub Login: @davidmu1
• Microsoft Alias: davidmu

[femsulu]

@spottedmahn Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Your feedback has been shared with the content owner for further review.

[davidmu1]

I understand the issue. I don't think this article is the appropriate place to describe the HTML schema. I have opened a workitem to investigate whether tags should be documented in a reference article.

[spottedmahn]

Hi David 😊

I don't think this article is the appropriate place to describe the HTML schema

fair enough

I have opened a workitem to investigate whether tags should be documented in a reference article.

Great 👍. IMO, it seems pretty critical to tell people what they can or can't do when customizing the UI.

[davidmu1]

@spottedmahn Thanks Michael. Always appreciate the feedback!

[davidmu1]

A workitem is open in the engineering queue to document this reference information and they are currently working on it.

please-close

[spottedmahn]

nice 👍

[spottedmahn]

A workitem is open in the engineering queue to document this reference information and they are currently working on it.

Hi @davidmu1 - was anything released on this topic?

[frankkilcommins]

Also wondering if anything has been released on this topic as I cannot find information within the B2C documentation for the filtering that is being applied.

Also, please see a related open question on why the 'for' attribute is being stripped.