IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] -0.0

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Fri, 27 September 2013 22:43 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@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 9692311E80DE for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 vAmudCTPtQ1w for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x233.google.com (mail-qa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0839E21F9ECE for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id j15so901007qaq.3 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:43:36 -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=LoMKVZuCgQzK80Vek0J5zJggiPo4qkyE1/iMVzZeeNI=; b=dNXIj51pQujHD0c1/9GFkzxdRwg6fFiWA9AZTeb0E9N08ovOzqwkIYdNNzDcvohAS+ kYsQbBvYYMWPW9nNx7MULiCE/fKLC9EeXOXc2AEmAKvfuH6U6LjiFA24pJv09hTm7L6k Q9A3490fdNc3IVCl2gncPTlzNzohzDUVDBydN9m3JV4C4J8/JUoR60zBZhCKepbrOAWw tfSpgOmfPOtSJizJeV4/WJVYwOFq0axWEKQdhuhGEJpv/SccTBBsTvTQ7hVGnzkqd66f k/CYUfOZg675maS3NM7ykbEiRpTMWWj51Rt3jddpP/HkZQzumvTy7vvEUoi4bHtNPRjt JQkw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.204.133 with SMTP id fm5mr12236854qcb.23.1380321816515; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130927224148.GE24460@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <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> <CAChr6SwMbYR2pG0R3jqTxCp2Ve=fRsm9ELUe7+EvzVtSVNoc6A@mail.gmail.com> <20130927224148.GE24460@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:43:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SwSj6se7yrU4ag4tAjy2PQ24KLeXrntka9rk3_s3nfcBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2be668c9c7804e765377e"
Cc: "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.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: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:43:37 -0000

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:41 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:

> R S scripsit:
>
> > I think this thread and the text in the draft shows that the WG didn't
> > fully understand what the chairs took to be consensus. It was nearly
> > a mistake, but it would have been *fine* if the WG let the existing
> > "implementations may place limitations on the range of numbers accepted"
> > text stand. Why not do that?
>
> Failure to distinguish between zero and negative zero is not a limitation
> of range.
>
> Limitations of precision are not limitations of range.


Do you want to change the text to say "implementations may place
limitations on the range and precision..." ?

That's totally true--I would be in favor.

- Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email