RE: [cgmo-webcgm] DOM question

["Dieter Weidenbrueck" <dieter@itedo.com>]

Hi Lofton,

>That said, I'd like to know how vendors would like to treat it, given that
>the mistake has been sitting there for a few years.  Approaches
>could range
>from fix it (Erratum fix means "retroactive" in worst case), to
>"grandfather", to somewhere in between, like a non-normative note
>explaining the former glitch in the specification and the fact
>that there's
>probably some legacy content floating around.

I vote for an erratum plus a non-normative note.

Reason:
- if we fix it "retroactively" it provides for the correct way to
  use WebCGM 1.0 in the future. If we wouldn't do it this way, it
  would still be "legal" as per WebCGM REC to do the wrong thing.
- There should be a non-normative note explaining the situation,
  and suggesting that vendors continue to support the "name" if
  they have done so up to now.

I am not sure whether we have to look at the <embed> tag for the same
reason. I don't have the time right now to check whether we have any
reference to it in the spec.

regards,
Dieter