Re: [Json] JSON or I-JSON?

I personally would use I-JSON if possible because it has useful MUSTs in it
to help resolve arguments between implementors.  [But then, I edited the
RFC, so I would.]  There's one downside, which is that as far as I know,
there's little software that actually enforces the I-JSON constraints.

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 6:55 AM Pete Cordell <petejson@codalogic.com> wrote:

> On 26/02/2021 13:59, John Cowan wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 7:49 AM Anders Rundgren
> > <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >     If the standard-to-be is supposed to interoperate with browsers and
> >     node.js the only viable option is RFC7493.
> >
> >     If the standard-to-be also targets the financial market, further
> >     constraints apply since floating point arithmetic is ill-suited for
> >     monetary operations. E.g. a monetary amount of 46.99 should be
> >     represented in JSON as the string "46.99".
> >
> >
> > RFC 8259 incorporates all of the restrictions of 7493 as
> > interoperability warnings, including the one above.  That way it stays
> > compatible with ECMA-404 (which has no such restrictions or warnings)
> > but still steers you away from the dark corners of JSON.
>
> RFC 8259 tells you "that way lies madness" but doesn't actually tell you
> to not to go that way!  RFC 7493 makes it explicit not to go that way
> for those that might otherwise say "well you didn't tell me not to...".
>
> Pete.
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Pete Cordell
> Codalogic Ltd
> C++ tools for C++ programmers, http://codalogic.com
> Read & write XML in C++, http://www.xml2cpp.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>