Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 11 October 2013 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 D0B2611E80F8 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.152
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.097, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 l4-mEIQr4mFl for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:30:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BC1B11E8174 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:30:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.224.120]) by informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r9BLTLFB024848; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:29:21 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.105] (p54890CAC.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.12.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2CD65D03; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:29:21 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:29:19 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5F0DF3E0-BA94-4ACA-81B2-A0F01D5F41D8@tzi.org>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF4E2DB@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <078c01cec6c5$d19fc990$74df5cb0$@augustcellars.com>
To: "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: 'JSON WG' <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] REMINDER - WGLC Ends 2013-10-11
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, 11 Oct 2013 21:30:42 -0000

On Oct 11, 2013, at 23:06, "Jim Schaad" <ietf@augustcellars.com> wrote:

> 4.  The following is technically a change in the grammar, however is there a
> reason why an integer cannot be 00, but 1E00 is legal? 

Many floating point formatters by default spit out something like 1.23e+08:

>> "%g" % 1.23e8
=> "1.23e+08"

>>> "%g" % 1.23e8
'1.23e+08'

#include <stdio.h>
int main() {printf("%g\n", 1.23e8); return 0;}
1.23e+08

We would make it harder*) to produce JSON for those implementations.

More importantly, there is lots of canned JSON out there that looks this way.

>  Do we want to change
> the definition of the exponent so that it matches that of integer?

Certainly not.

Grüße, Carsten


*) inspect.sub(/(e[+-])0+/) {$1}
(I happen to have written this line exactly two months ago as part of making some output bitwise identical with the output of some JavaScript code.)