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

On 3/20/14, 3:39 PM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
> On 3/11/14, 8:06 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> Actually, there are perhaps some corners to consider knocking off 
>> related to:
>>> * I verified that the syntax numbers with fractional parts is the 
>>> same in both iCal in jCal. Specifically "4." is not valid in either 
>>> grammar, so there is no need to discuss something like adding a 0 or 
>>> remove the decimal point during conversion.
>> [...]
>>
>> So, in iCal, you could have '+4' . json doesn't allow the plus sign.
>>
>> iCal appears to allow leading 0s. json does not.
>
> 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.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> jcardcal mailing list
>> jcardcal@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jcardcal
>