IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] -0.0

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Thu, 26 September 2013 18:50 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 EDA3B21F9AE7 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.177, 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 1Rkav94IsMmt for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:50:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-f42.google.com (mail-vb0-f42.google.com [209.85.212.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1412921F9991 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e12so1148424vbg.15 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:50:27 -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=YCqoU0k5HKSMT7UWg7FJu/oVgSxJ9JwPlASgZQ31LrM=; b=BrOO+K/qcY1zdPEdzW6gWcZf2lRL9jobemqHv1UnT/pkpwwo8dTFxTwy+2wL9DuGz9 UxMZQfhTePr038ETrladGvtBICiNuE9jD/vax7beU8ktig/OL6xwr5n7dWgeZ8nYCEGF dDQ5+on6HnRHFOjhEzSLtjcrDfYgbIS0Vm1Lf34RYR2iFs/F1s+5+aiQsdEh6RjRl64b S3t5XhxituZhQmCSX+OM7dm7qoEr2PpAXXlPxVURnhCwtABbbES8IkGyOXzxvBGSuchb /sn0k4VYVyn83UpLmKhqvS2X9YAG+frmUEPTza5lJT0LE/HDhYjDrz7sRKH9H5uvSF9i hiqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkBNyuocVfGqfWZPDVADueECL7TASRdB84WeO5YDYKT/dSecoA5qg7JvnWVaEkFCwwIV32P
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.37.69 with SMTP id w5mr1621754vdj.32.1380221427494; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.221.64.201 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:50:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [96.49.81.176]
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SzEBdgF_Cv2ZnC1Oo2CnL06dwZqsOKA=HTVkgArcTyLEw@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 11:50:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iu=LbwcZgEPzKgurR7s+jCUeVMEagq1knzOBWUky9SLoA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf30780db0e5db5704e74dd7c7"
Cc: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 18:50:35 -0000

Well, except for the very first thing I tried, a modern Ruby with the
default "require 'json'", did not preserve the sign.

I think Rob’s right that a large majority of modern implementations do...
is that enough reason to take out the caution?


On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:48 AM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>wrote:
>
>>    Numbers which represent zero without a sign, for example as 0 or 0.0
>>    not -0 or -0.0, are interoperable in the sense that software
>>    implementations will agree on the zero value.  Signed zeros are
>>    significant in some numerically-intensive applications, but
>>    implementations which read JSON texts cannot be relied upon to
>>    preserve that distinction.
>>
>> On Sep 26, 2013, at 10:31 AM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think there is a rationale for the text on -0.0. Is it for
>> non-IEE754 implementations?
>>
>> Do we need to state a rationale here, or does the text stand on its own?
>>
>>
> I meant that I don't see why it's in the draft at all. I propose deleting
> this paragraph, since I don't believe it is correct. Most implementations
> can be relied upon to preserve signed zeros.
>
> - Rob
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> json@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email