http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5334 ------- Comment #4 from mike@saxonica.com 2008-01-22 20:47 ------- Concerning comment #3: yes, for "insert into" that would be a reasonable expectation. What makes it unreasonable is that we allow "insert after" to insert a new attribute "after" an existing child element. If there's an existing child <c/> and we can insert (@a, <e/>) after <c/>, then clearly this involves some rearrangement of the sequence (@a, <e/>); and if this sequence can be rearranged, then so can (<e/>, @a).Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2008 20:47:19 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 January 2008 20:47:20 GMT