Re: [Json] Limitations on number size?

Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com> Thu, 11 July 2013 21:28 UTC

Return-Path: <fgaliegue@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 7E9B311E817F for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 BuuXI6InYTu4 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:28:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-x231.google.com (mail-ee0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B78B711E812A for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:28:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f49.google.com with SMTP id b57so5757028eek.36 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:28:16 -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=FqtV1m/9QY2JkkdZ5J4+VmLP54qctdiLkrxbMXhs1qo=; b=Aw8+nUMSa5iKU17eGusYXprd3LE2xtyMCtXFRyVZduJljF6kBPIYRQWWEgcwCInF+G GDNwUz49N2YPZis3B3QMv6wg914zqnUAhAbuZO8sVtghi6fKj9NbVcIEcmo6RS1rbqYV JN7ZeieAN0mkZOeaGR8JgBdCl3ov58OWg4DC0cVOvbBMARJZnVbDvxyKc25S/xT1dvu5 wN8ewZs8cseoIbw8I2aDlamGEjtTzETc4v6ObgRteAGGVghkIUO+TCFwCc1svPYKegnV KYol2zhqf8hk9vL186T+BJ4o9hrIg6R9IdIf+yqRuZk0Q49QEx9hRpP4yo8OXlfb6NGc ql2w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.14.32.197 with SMTP id o45mr44157401eea.9.1373578096862; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.14.175.135 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOiQdHcGGMW2=aYiLvgYWmd_X6T+7mtqnV0m101XEz=pgQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51DC0F95.7010407@gmail.com> <hf8ot8hnpa93pi3t54c4d5qcc3p5tnb3ca@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CAK3OfOgTNaLpRthrRcU4Bo+3z1aXUOOn0Ord7RBPN8z6TtiiWw@mail.gmail.com> <51DC7F87.6060503@gmail.com> <D3773B95-FF52-45D7-BE9F-2DEC92AFA67E@jorgechamorro.com> <51DC92B1.7000908@gmail.com> <CALcybBBF+=7RE3wqhZE6m=VzQ1HZK3GChoZd2xr_3x992521pg@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOiQdHcGGMW2=aYiLvgYWmd_X6T+7mtqnV0m101XEz=pgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 23:28:16 +0200
Message-ID: <CALcybBCpeZZY+WTWuHb_=ArG_FZhJZ-fNLvSs42_JWy8+919-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francis Galiegue <fgaliegue@gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Jorge Chamorro <jorge@jorgechamorro.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, json@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Json] Limitations on number size?
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, 11 Jul 2013 21:28:18 -0000

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:03 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> That's not responsive to Peter's comment.  Just as we shouldn't leave
> out bignums, we cannot require bignum support either, and people who
> create open APIs with the intention to interop will have to face this
> (and related) problems.
>

I do not deny this. However:

>> The number production grammar is perfect as it is, I see no reason to change it.
>
> The *grammar* is, the semantics are underspecified.
>

I don't believe the JSON RFC should _require_ any semantics. Advice,
yes, why not. But API programmers are well aware that they have to
deal with their own language's/other people's languages limitations.
So, even then it does not look necessary at all.

--
Francis Galiegue, fgaliegue@gmail.com
JSON Schema in Java: http://json-schema-validator.herokuapp.com