> I also thought along these lines, but it would change the semantics compared to the original approach. 

Why? I guess what you are saying is that the validated inout should always have been just the body content, but that is not necessarily what `@SafeHtml implies. In fact it is not explicit about this at all. I think it is fair to assume that you can also pass a full html document to it. I think we are fine to make the changes I suggest, but if not, we should at least update the javadocs of `SafeHtml.