QUESTION: allow grnode as child of para and subpara?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,
-Lofton.