IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] -0.0

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Thu, 26 September 2013 18:48 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C1C21F9D53 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OOsrnQLSneTN for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x234.google.com (mail-qa0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F7BE21E8087 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:48:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id k4so1106512qaq.11 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:48:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xPzA7SzyHKLl6QGGaRdxKNUEg4OKhoVEqccoBwfYhAE=; b=zJT+1D3eMJaoUdJg1BNeyPgxeRlEeMF68UBKjd/1Gq7MATNtxhJcb3BuCSXgTKXJq4 xMGA9I/2l5Qz47dPpkSXnKySfEgmyiSFsy8vVufoE5jgNud2N3AZR9OeGSijznz53eHR Z067AVePj8gLR3v3v/HU4OZVhuLczfNXpWDV9noGrtBBB5HybAThXDHFTb7KR0OBvNCb +stf9So/oJWCDLHLM4sxWyHYlGAJ5x99RyZLJ38/GH/tqhdCkibT11gt1EVLdskQ+Y/4 Qij2uACbxdgh3R/8bEqLYfhX4q1ggiwDiYES9npqnsimO5u20r3hHzDkbqxBtM3toBQy ljcg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.167.18 with SMTP id o18mr8508489qay.87.1380221299621; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6D5CFCAD-5B75-4246-BE42-D42E4D35C344@vpnc.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <6D5CFCAD-5B75-4246-BE42-D42E4D35C344@vpnc.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:48:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SzEBdgF_Cv2ZnC1Oo2CnL06dwZqsOKA=HTVkgArcTyLEw@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e01294f5a46885404e74dd0ae"
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] -0.0
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:48:27 -0000

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>wrote:

>    Numbers which represent zero without a sign, for example as 0 or 0.0
>    not -0 or -0.0, are interoperable in the sense that software
>    implementations will agree on the zero value.  Signed zeros are
>    significant in some numerically-intensive applications, but
>    implementations which read JSON texts cannot be relied upon to
>    preserve that distinction.
>
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't think there is a rationale for the text on -0.0. Is it for
> non-IEE754 implementations?
>
> Do we need to state a rationale here, or does the text stand on its own?
>
>
I meant that I don't see why it's in the draft at all. I propose deleting
this paragraph, since I don't believe it is correct. Most implementations
can be relied upon to preserve signed zeros.

- Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email