Motion 26 Decorations: NO
I vote NO. (Sorry for the late vote.)
I have had a hard time deciding my vote on this motion. I like the
concept and I really appreciate the amount of work that was put into
this motion. Unfortunately, I feel this feature is a bit too fresh with
respect to its complexity, and we (at least I) don't have enough
experience about it to push it into a standard. In one year from now, I
would have probably voted yes (assuming no issue was uncovered in the
meantime), but right now I can't get myself to do it.
On a more precise point, I'm not fond of intersection and union not
returning decorated intervals. While I can see how several competing
semantics are possible (hence causing the user to inadvertently expect a
nonstandard one), letting the user code the decoration by hand feels
like a bad idea, if only because it is as error-prone as the previous
situation. Perhaps that just means there should be several intersections
and unions (e.g. clamp, refine, aggregate, combine, and so on) that
would only differ in their handling of decorations.
Best regards,
Guillaume