- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 17:13:44 +0200
- To: "Calogero Alex Baldacchino" <alex.baldacchino@email.it>
- Cc: www-dom@w3.org
* Calogero Alex Baldacchino wrote: >I'm not sure, but I think that the full operation should always be >performed, since either the user could have retrieved an instance of the >removed attribute node before calling 'removeAttribute' or >'removeAttributeNS', or such an instance would be returned by >'removeAttributeNode'. So, if removing an Attr with the default values >(specified=false) turned into a nop, any modify to the previous gained >instance would lead to unwanted side-effects. Yeah, I certainly see this. Another case would be if .isId has been modified, does the Attr node cease to be an ID when removing the Attr node? I'm just saying it needs to be defined. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 15:13:43 UTC