Re: [Json] Limitations on number size?

Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@gmail.com> Wed, 10 July 2013 01:12 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaloranta@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 A4CA021F9B08 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.464
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.031, BAYES_00=-2.599, FF_IHOPE_YOU_SINK=2.166, 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 iXLqMChGa3xk for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0976C21F9A96 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id w56so5230050wes.25 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:12:07 -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=gpXXhg5GsknxtXNZIPH2DcLUFQfGEF+KZevtQEhhAM4=; b=DH15yAzXJSuHLuDkv9eABmZK9ztdvF1PvuD94z37wZG8IbvTVFyFNsJlrcTZhYBnh4 fQIKOzZ/Dw3FogEC2MrQyKhEkZfm0uiHwGweI6wkxpodvIBce3BNHwR0SNj1HM8qPZA1 FEQiq4UKs3H84DORmYm2J9PG6sT//0zNrpV+9CtqlPNqwEGDAklUKp2COF9dBubIOuYc ftUFRM0zIpm0ZDFDBsn5V7DPl2fcj/M6LbM1FXUrrC7Z6YnHTNGjw3XIS6zt29lOrDJK FlfD6iFrvEtTMHIPmGc/zxvNvbr7g2615uIeGwDklSvjaeKnxE8C+QQjklfqSzlbDos2 pCEg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.188.36 with SMTP id fx4mr32924960wic.55.1373418727179; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.34.199 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51DC95B2.8080801@gmail.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>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:12:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGrxA27oa8dyUA=sR9rGLq4rE3G3rofPsSXXJnUk2w4PF4L_Bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25cd85c8faa04e11df72a
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "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 01:12:10 -0000

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

> Where then am I supposed to go to find out what a JSON number represents?
>   There are many possibilities (float only, rational only, separate integer
> and float, separate rational and float, variable-precision decimal only,
> separate integer and variable-precision decimal, variable precision float
> only, ...). And then there are the various range possibilities.
>
>
The only suitable guidance provided in RFC4627 is via ECMAScript and
> ECMAScript is firmly IEEE floating point double only.
>
>
So why are you surprised that I came up with this conclusion?
>
>
So your proof is of the form "I was trying to find answer to X; and the
only answer I found was Y; thereby it MUST BE the right answer"? That is a
logical fallacy of some kind.

But you are right in that perhaps I should not be surprised. Different
people reach different conclusions all the time, even if given same
information.

-+ Tatu +-



> peter
>
>
>
>
> On 07/09/2013 02:34 PM, Tatu Saloranta wrote:
>
>> I am surprised you came to this conclusion, since I assumed we were
>> finally getting rid of misconception that JSON is closely tied to
>> Javascript.
>>
>> This is not to say that the way JSON (under-)defines numbers is optimal;
>> but at this point forcing castrated version of numbers -- which would lead
>> to practical problems like preventing use of 64-bit longs for timestamps --
>> would be counter-productive and to me a non-starter.
>>
>> -+ Tatu +-
>>
>>
>>
>