QUESTION. can 'layer' be descendant?

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

SUMMARY.  Layer can't be descendant from grobject, para, subpara, etc.  In 
3.2.2.9, 'visibility', it says, "The value of 'visibility' is inherited by 
any descendant objects of type 'layer' , 'grobject', 'para', and 
'subpara'."  And says similarly in 3.2.2.10.  It would seem safe to remove 
'layer' from the list.  But in Ch.5 (5.4) we define the picture as the root 
of the inheritance tree, and the inheritance model describes going up the 
tree to find the value that is then inherited down.  So 'layer' would be 
descendant from Picture, which (at least) assumes initial value 'on' 
according to 5.4.  (For the visibility case, it is also possible to 
explicitly set it on Picture with setPictureVisibility()).

RECOMMENDATION.  I think it is okay to leave 'layer' in there, as is, 
particularly since "inherited" now links to 5.4.

Okay?  (If "no", then propose a specific fix.)

-Lofton.

At 02:36 PM 10/5/2005 -0600, Robert Orosz wrote:
>[...]
>6) I would prefer that someone more familiar with the DOM that I am, answer
>that one.
>
>[...]
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lofton Henderson [mailto:lofton@rockynet.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 7:08 PM
>To: Robert Orosz; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [cgmo-webcgm] Chapter 3 review
>
>
>[...]
> >Section 3.2.2.9
> >
> >A 'layer' cannot be a "descendant object" can it?
>
>No.  Before we remove it, let's be sure that doesn't break the inheritance
>of visibility from Picture to 'layer'.  Recall that we added (to DOM and
>XCF) a pictureVisibility thingy, and the inheritance model of 5.4
>recognizes Picture as the root of the inheritance tree.
>
>QUESTION 6.  Will someone check all of this and see if it is safe to remove
>'layer' here?