Re: [Json] Limitations on number size?

[Tatu Saloranta <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:42 PM, John Cowan <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Tatu Saloranta scripsit:
>
> > 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.
>
> Apparently, there are already practical problems with interchanging
> 64-bit longs: google for [json large numbers bugs] for lots of reports.
> While there are apparently int32-only systems out there, it's clearly
> understood that they are unusually restricted: such is not the case
> for JavaScript-hosted implementations.


I am not saying there can't be problems there (and I have gotten feature
requests for optional processing limitations to conform to Javascript
representation); but rather that these are also successfully and widely
used. So it is fine to define or recommend safe(r) profiles that take
commonly encountered limitations into account.
But just to take care not to consider this strict limitation on all usage.

-+ Tatu +-