Re: [Json] Proposal: the minimal edit

[R S <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:59 PM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> R S scripsit:
>
> > + N. Differences from ECMAScript
> > +
> > + ECMAScript implementations produce and consume primitive JSON values at
> > + the root level of JSON documents.
> > +
> > + ECMAScript implementations generate and consume unpaired Unicode
> > + surrogate code points in JSON documents.
> > +
> > + When there are duplicate names within an object, ECMAScript parsers
> > + overwrite the value corresponding to such names with the value that
> > + appears last in the serialization.
>
> To which I add:
>
> + ECMAScript parsers only accept,


This bit is not quite right. I think they'll accept anything that conforms
to the JSON grammar, and then produce a number that is not what the sender
intended if it's out of range.



> and ECMAScript generators only generate,
> + numbers that correspond to the finite values of binary 64-bit IEEE
> + 754:2008 floating point numbers.
>

As I said in the other thread, I wouldn't oppose including text along these
lines. It is a real problem and people do get bitten by it. For example:

<https://dev.twitter.com/docs/twitter-ids-json-and-snowflake>

But I don't think it's required for the minimal edit I'm proposing here.
It's one of the things we should look at as a follow on.

- Rob