Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #5: Numbers

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Wed, 21 May 2014 15:19 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156641A0346 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Zfh3LL66UmF for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:19:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f177.google.com (mail-ve0-f177.google.com [209.85.128.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D0DF1A0845 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f177.google.com with SMTP id db11so2645034veb.8 for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=87SEh+7gZV5yuRLtd9d9m7+i72ghCASHdzZbR5tWf5s=; b=f+vbP825zs0PDytVVVCu/cqvCGwh3gQraPoeuz5nQRfe8BC6wq65ASe/dV0WoAYYb8 pxaFixDgXR//sW2kIAaEUNGo1hneZydNyOnJQvaA4IxiZQD1/aaxQVVjCcKpyd3t0e5V Az3sMYwCD+Pl+7H67gyDcWnnCGaQPOXu9tEFJG2JL1263El177NTmKyZ1V2Pf34xaw/g ZTu6riysI3Oz7XJSBKZMMjGYrepO1mG+LDdksh474C+GiiyYPiiG+WMUoIFwUQvJNSE/ m5vHPTdoeBLhTwun3diQag2UcxFO6tTxwyKUZlRwD6ha5U3f/CYfLgJ5PlBxr7ZS49cO us/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlRMO/OZuUl109eXya1amIbeRjkRg3bmIZXnYmwLSj1LR23gWgDRz9mtmGGKLztFs3FgOLu
X-Received: by 10.52.27.170 with SMTP id u10mr817491vdg.69.1400685561405; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:19:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.98.73 with HTTP; Wed, 21 May 2014 08:19:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [50.95.189.211]
In-Reply-To: <CFA21B5C.4A721%jhildebr@cisco.com>
References: <535EB3BF.8080606@cisco.com> <CAHBU6ivjF9ULW0yGSVdJi2D6QgUThuhym_ZhpgLM=cvLu=mAiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CF841AAE.47D86%jhildebr@cisco.com> <CAHBU6itK5HtSTPWSsHsHUPja90emqU86LsgjrBorkqcUDivS2A@mail.gmail.com> <CF87EB9C.48BB0%jhildebr@cisco.com> <537A5BE0.3020406@cisco.com> <CF9FCEC9.4A4E7%jhildebr@cisco.com> <488AE66E-725D-40B3-9FDA-ADA1018BCF65@tzi.org> <CFA0F09E.4A609%jhildebr@cisco.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E115461FFE59@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <20140521020731.GG9283@mercury.ccil.org> <CFA21B5C.4A721%jhildebr@cisco.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 10:19:01 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHBU6isTUiH0WmCskc0sjrPjNvWtTKnJC8F8f-p=4jKF6bD25g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr)" <jhildebr@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307c9d005475d404f9ea85fe
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/4GfuHlW3crN8yIndMnGFPJnw2mw
Cc: "Manger, James" <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, "Matt Miller \(mamille2\)" <mamille2@cisco.com>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #5: Numbers
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "JavaScript Object Notation \(JSON\) WG mailing list" <json.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/json/>
List-Post: <mailto:json@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json>, <mailto:json-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 15:19:29 -0000

I’ll go with the flow, but I’m wondering if it might not be better to just
call out to IEEE 754’s semantics, since that is well understood and widely
described; take a call-by-reference approach.


On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) <
jhildebr@cisco.com> wrote:

> On 5/20/14, 8:07 PM, "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>
> >"An I-JSON sender MUST NOT expect a receiver to treat a non-zero number
> >whose absolute value is greater than 1e308 or less than 1e-308
> >as an exact value.  Furthermore, an I-JSON sender MUST NOT expect a
> >receiver to treat an integer whose absolute value is greater than
> >9007199254740992 as an exact value."
>
> +1.  Succinct and captures the issues.
>
> --
> Joe Hildebrand
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>



-- 
- Tim Bray (If you’d like to send me a private message, see
https://keybase.io/timbray)