Re: [cgmo-webcgm] QUESTION: allow grnode as child of para and subpara?

[Benoit Bezaire <benoit@itedo.com>]

Hi Lofton,

My thoughts:
If grobject is allowed within para and subpara, then yes, grnode
should be allowed; if grobject is not allowed as a child of para and
subpara; then no.

-- 
 Benoit   mailto:benoit@itedo.com


Thursday, September 22, 2005, 6:36:09 PM, Lofton wrote:

LH> Ref: 
LH> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cgmo-webcgm/200509/msg00093.html
LH> Comments:  36
LH> ==========

LH> QUESTION:  should the content model allow grnode to be a child of para or
LH> subpara?

LH> DISCUSSION:
LH> Dieter writes,
LH> "Since both [para & subpara] may contain graphical data, i.e. polygonized
LH> text, shouldn't grnode be allowed in here as well? I am not sure, because
LH> grnode may contain grobject etc, so probably not. However, if not, the text
LH> in 3.2.1.5 needs to be changed, where the Viewer Behavior suggests that a
LH> grnode's direct ancestor could be a para or subpara."

LH> The simplest solution is to fix the editorial glitch (about grnode's direct
LH> ancestor possibly being para or subpara).  Unless we have a compelling use
LH> case to change the content model, I think we should leave it alone.

LH> RECOMMENDATION:  fix the wording in 3.1.5, removing para & subpara from the
LH> "Viewer behavior" paragraph.

LH> Regards,
LH> -Lofton.