Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #5: Numbers

[Matt Miller <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 5/22/14, 10:14 AM, Nico Williams wrote:
> My proposal is to reference IEEE 754 and perhaps have some
> informative references to various web pages detailing the
> limitations of IEEE 754 doubles.  Then state that any numbers which
> cannot be represented -by JSON implementations that use IEEE 754
> doubles- with sufficient precision/accuracy/fidelity SHOULD NOT
> (MUST NOT?) be sent as JSON numbers.
> 
> Alternatively, find a suitable external, informative reference to
> the limitations of IEEE 754, get permission to copy its text, then
> paste it in.
> 
> Or, if IEEE 754 covers these issues in sufficient detail, then
> just normatively reference IEEE 754 and call it a day.
> 
> If IEEE 754 does not cover these issues in sufficient detail then
> we probably could do with a generic RFC on the matter...
> 
> Nico --
> 

Nico, do you have any concrete suggestions of text?  It would appear
that John Cowan's is very close; what changes would you propose over that?

I've been told off-list that IEEE 754 (which is referenced from RFC
7159, in case we've all forgotten) doesn't cover this topic at all,
and my own superficial review leads me to concur.


- -- 
- - m&m

Matt Miller < [e-mail] >
Cisco Systems, Inc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJThMEYAAoJEDWi+S0W7cO1pC0IALNI/p+UgtYSP94I5XcsWoRm
+m3dUPeOHYcC35DG0RfVx7rapBdPPKjnriCT6KPdRPmc6GDtkBg6HUfLs90e+Sxp
i5S0LIaokCVasiq2U4m9J84uQQgJl+fAFA7YPAs0F8QMnIpqIcq2RTgWqSqdL8xv
OSgERXwyAaVtqfZ0wq1yFx6yVyVDkc9VVnhzb/2jjIHWQWzTlZpfQ4jYIpJ4h/vD
FEzjV5DBRdjIZpJCBMM+Y86n+Nw/aXtcodmPuVcx1aBm/ZIjrNQ2lowXuWVi7lWI
lSPNJxbW3uCgH69gv8nSc3uriyeoOBpUdRhoGEblLXDMttABHXsewxlbZDcNSKQ=
=BA5P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----