Re: [Json] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC8259 (7617)

[Rob Sayre <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 9:32 PM RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7617
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Guillaume Fortin-Debigaré <[e-mail]>
>
> Notes
> -----
> IEEE 754 does not consider negative zero and positive zero to be the same
> numeric value, even though it considers them equal. Despite this,
> JavaScript serializes negative zero as the JSON text "0", which contradicts
> the original text.
>

I don't think this is a problem with the JSON RFC. The dispute here is
about JSON.stringify(), part of the ECMAScript specification. Consult:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/JSON/stringify

There are many such choices in there:

JSON.stringify({test: 0})
'{"test":0}'
JSON.stringify({test: -0})
'{"test":0}'
JSON.stringify({test: Infinity})
'{"test":null}'


> My suggested correction mentions "rational numbers in decimal or
> scientific notation" since it's never explicitly mentioned in the document
> how a number should be interpreted when parsed to maximize
> interoperability. This version addresses that concern at the same time.
>

The document does say "A number is represented in base 10 using decimal
digits."

JSON.parse('{"test": 0}')
{test: 0}
JSON.parse('{"test": -0}')
{test: -0}

thanks,
Rob