Definition of legal caret positions before/after inline elements is unclear

[Reinmar]

• After inline elements that are not text nodes.
• Before inline elements that are not text nodes and that do not have a previousSibling.

I find this a bit confusing:

1. Elements cannot be text nodes, so I think that saying "After inline elements" is enough.
2. The second point mentions previousSibling, while the first one doesn't. Is there a specific reason why it is formulated this way?

Couldn't it be formulated this way: "After and before inline elements"?

[johanneswilm]

The main reason being that each legal position is just mentioned once.

[Reinmar]

So "that are not text nodes" reduces that rule to "after inline elements which are not followed by text nodes", yes?

PS. Is it a requirement for a spec that such points are exclusive?

[johanneswilm]

If there is universal agreement on text nodes not being elements, then yes. If you look through the closed issues you will find someone making the point that it would be better if the same point wasn't mentioned twice, as otgerwise it could be interpreted as "after A" and "before B" meaning different points that need to be distinguishable, given a sequence AB of elements.
Could you create a PR? I will merge.

[Reinmar]

Could you create a PR?

There's one more thing I would like to clarify before I'll make it. I'm writing an issue for it right now.

[johanneswilm]

I have made the chances as proposed:

I think that saying "After inline elements" is enough.

and

after inline elements which are not followed by text nodes

Please reopen if there are things you feel have not been addressed.