IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] -0.0

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Sun, 29 September 2013 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.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 EFCC811E8139 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:46:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.604
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 niE0CzUOzwC9 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:46:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f50.google.com (mail-vb0-f50.google.com [209.85.212.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D496121F96CA for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:46:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id x14so3193155vbb.37 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=8MiAsFGjOG/nJ4ZNi0XVCmw8z3TUH7pSUEjIMUxj5g0=; b=IaTZgr4c70WIHEDajeE33wscCqaCxFxhhB3rNmH0sEsF+z5Rhv/wFJl7TbHCmnZ9q3 c4uIETz98soFcAAd1/kOWvmTpIcSHlyKSorbp7eigvRY+BrC9Tcrur44oDbjw0hYjC+i g/ke5ffll9eGRHZPBaKxUCwvtq2RdG30gAx2KlM0d1tmjHp8U3kWqkggmouumr6P8PyW ooN/RFIahSHUYFhqRSZl6gn93J/Sz14bm3fIfenjSt9EoFMabNXlJ2CiO2Kcoz8tEKuI RDo0JgcU+FfH+yUHYS/vNiZGr7pwpzvRAO1fs0z3ip/ZxChcqJsAXHMwz+m/JaGONGIO qa2Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk6yFcjGRCNPp6D/4LxkhayxTWCzHoZSnwWQaivbDCuOPZnIohbFnY8hZ4OzBil6w5xKqDf
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.118.130 with SMTP id km2mr18523388veb.0.1380487578321; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.221.64.201 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:46:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [24.84.235.32]
In-Reply-To: <25C6CA6F-76F0-42DE-8845-850B8B69F1A6@tzi.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <6D5CFCAD-5B75-4246-BE42-D42E4D35C344@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SzEBdgF_Cv2ZnC1Oo2CnL06dwZqsOKA=HTVkgArcTyLEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iu=LbwcZgEPzKgurR7s+jCUeVMEagq1knzOBWUky9SLoA@mail.gmail.com> <52454988.5030706@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <20130927214137.GC24460@mercury.ccil.org> <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1E1E5@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SxfAv+yjEzsn2R=S79MviRN+bYak=8Nnnkw9hfs3p1zxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SxYSzXGf5hrVNvmdmpHU2R+cKSH+37NhTc--6iDpfXG3g@mail.gmail.com> <9D959999-63A2-46EF-8C14-C48F586D9DA4@tzi.org> <CAChr6Sz4Hg--YrWnxXOxJJmbx=AmjDoEZXxs7HeTV58w5VSRDg@mail.gmail.com> <25C6CA6F-76F0-42DE-8845-850B8B69F1A6@tzi.org>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 13:46:18 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6is6w6WpsYOeOP=yMREAhz90+J4OPC6uVB+nXca2aJMmpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013a05acb914a204e78bcfb4"
Cc: JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
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: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 20:46:28 -0000

Yeah, but my opinion is shifting here... it's starting to feel to me like
there's nothing remotely JSON-specific about the problems around -0.  Let
me see, if I were going to do another draft based on what people have been
saying here, I'd, in Section 6

- Remove "are represented without "frac" or "exp" parts (for example as 3
not 3.0)"
- Lose the whole paragraph beginning "Numbers which represent zero without
a sign...

Less is more. Is anyone passionate about keeping either?

 -T


On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:

> On Sep 29, 2013, at 22:25, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not sure that file is relevant
>
> It is an example of an implementation that encodes a floating point
> negative zero as »-0«, which is then decoded as a plain (integer) zero by
> most implementations.
>
> Summary: If you want wide interoperability, don't rely on negative zero
> (in any form) staying distinct.  (And if you don't need wide
> interoperability, the encoded form »-0.0« appears to survive best.)
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email