Re: [Json] Limitations on number size?

Jorge Chamorro <jorge@jorgechamorro.com> Wed, 10 July 2013 00:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jorge@jorgechamorro.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 B1EDA11E80D3 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:19:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 HJec2GOpzIRl for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E1311E8199 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 17:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c10so10799388wiw.17 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=mX0XvViGr5YhytlgCndjrfoBa6rzmQ0/Q3mvxjXg+V4=; b=WrxOBzlgJSIQ9fX8BdP29LxCFN6gGWyiuM9DwjAJzJYrXouzRTZUNrm2dZcVyMsY+S hxxcQrRqLOBX2ryNY7XoB3EXGGjrVVTKAuArM/C6PX+nNEZGYYgh8Vsoc4cobUVMwOmQ Qn1hs79EBxCxJ04OExkUgJgKYj5R8hr0fsz0cstG8na8uX83UAUTfmjKALE2v2TvjSYO Vu09IXqLs8IXdUbfsQNrI/ku+AWkOCRJwHPqNF7PDjyxFyyRwYv0Y3O5XoFo4qw9swzp ticGyuIT6A+Gm5bN3hoVT33YOt/1hDrNNmLdRHHVSeCPB1S8xCh8VpoT7pcrU3eLhLgx f7oQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.48.116 with SMTP id k20mr16759930wjn.23.1373415582220; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.10.50] (189.Red-79-155-151.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [79.155.151.189]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id p1sm64081630wix.9.2013.07.09.17.19.40 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Jul 2013 17:19:41 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Jorge Chamorro <jorge@jorgechamorro.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO1wJ5SPGTo4=U9exJqWtL_4K521_tBKqD_LxBDb0UzfBzRhqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 02:19:39 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <88456E47-3DC1-4EE9-B827-B3705FAB93D6@jorgechamorro.com>
References: <51DC0F95.7010407@gmail.com> <hf8ot8hnpa93pi3t54c4d5qcc3p5tnb3ca@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CAK3OfOgTNaLpRthrRcU4Bo+3z1aXUOOn0Ord7RBPN8z6TtiiWw@mail.gmail.com> <51DC7F87.6060503@gmail.com> <CAGrxA24v5L7oCGxEOwecJSLCNiLrSWSt=jFJMA0M9E8fztNLag@mail.gmail.com> <51DC95B2.8080801@gmail.com> <CAO1wJ5SPGTo4=U9exJqWtL_4K521_tBKqD_LxBDb0UzfBzRhqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jacob Davies <jacob@well.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkQytenIjoez+9ZpQqv0bwETD/4IpKR5joSXs+TBg2zb9KEYv2FYfI6vmTGnw8Pv1PuGCki
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@gmail.com>, "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] Limitations on number size?
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: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 00:19:50 -0000

On 10/07/2013, at 01:49, Jacob Davies wrote:
> 
> My take prior to this discussion was that the mild annoyance of not
> being able to send 9223372036854775807 as a number in JSON was the
> reasonable price you paid for having an interoperable number range in
> the format. It seemed like most people here disagreed with my
> impression, which is fair enough, and it sounded like Douglas
> Crockford's intent was not to restrict them in such a way, but I would
> be surprised if many people actually - intentionally at least! - use
> numbers from outside the Javascript range in JSON, given the problems
> it causes for Javascript.

Right, the implementations set the limits, and JavaScript implementations in particular have to watch out for interoperability problems in the presence of 64 bit ints.
-- 
( Jorge )();