Re: [Jcardcal] [Gen-art] Genart LC review: draft-ietf-jcardcal-jcal-09

[Philipp Kewisch <[e-mail]>]

On 3/26/14, 11:26 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
> On 3/20/14, 11:22 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe this just requires some adjustment in wording. The gist is
>>> that numbers should be represented in whatever way needed by the
>>> underlying rfc, i.e 5545 or 7159. If a number represented with a
>>> leading + sign is found in iCal, the same number can be represented
>>> without a leading + sign in JSON. Analogous for leading zeros. Would
>>> you prefer this is explicitly stated?
>> Yes. And I don't think it needs much text. Just let the implementer
>> know the issue is there to take care of.
> I've added the following paragraph to the Pre-processing section 3.1:
>
> NEW
>           There is a subtle difference in the number representations
> between
>           jCal and iCalendar. While in iCalendar a number may have leading
>           zeros, as well as a leading plus sign, this is not the case
> in JSON.
>           Numbers should be represented in whatever way needed for the
>           underlying format.
> END

Of course that should say:

NEW
          There is a subtle difference in the number representations between
          JSON and iCalendar. While in iCalendar a number may have leading
          zeros, as well as a leading plus sign, this is not the case in
JSON.
          Numbers should be represented in whatever way needed for the
          underlying format.
END