YES and NO
Jürgen Wolff von Gudenberg wrote, with respect to Motion 41:
> I would vote YES if the last sentence of 2.5 is either dropped or changed
> in a manner that compressed decorated intervals will be optional
He did spot an oversight, or rather a conflict between 2.5 and 8.8.11
(the latter was going to be in Motion 42, but will probably be dropped
as an item to be voted on in that motion): 8.8.11 clearly states that
support of compressed decorated intervals is optional.
So clause 2.5 should indeed say "may be provided" instead of "is provided".
This raises a delicate issue with respect to piecemeal voting on the standard:
there are dependencies between the pieces, and changes to parts not yet voted
on (as standard text) may affect parts already approved. So -- would a strict
interpretation of Motion 41 passing imply that 8.8.1 would have to be amended
to require support of compressed decorated intervals? If so, I would agree
with Jürgen's NO vote -- but my inclination (I have not yet voted formally
on Motion 41) would be to assume that necessary reconciliation of sections
will occur, and that the current vote should reflect general agreement.
Recall that I voted YES on Motion 39 even though I had two minor objections.
My assumption was that this would be dealt with in later editing.
Michel.
---Sent: 2013-01-14 16:51:52 UTC