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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Tue, 27 May 2014 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 881E91A01E1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 10:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oy0cxJ2rP1TG for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 10:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9EDD1A01C5 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 10:48:26 -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 (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s4RHm8ZK011126; Tue, 27 May 2014 19:48:08 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.217.148] (p54892D14.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.137.45.20]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-fb3.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 822B11DAA; Tue, 27 May 2014 19:48:07 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6isjZjfoga_g9efiK1L=Pf40ZQXg8War+k9JDM13quHPOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 19:48:06 +0200
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 422905685.970984-e0d3e35e8620c8dbf7f5a2ef2600b4d5
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF223160-A135-4B8E-A895-53A4BF63AA1E@tzi.org>
References: <535EB3BF.8080606@cisco.com> <CAHBU6ivjF9ULW0yGSVdJi2D6QgUThuhym_ZhpgLM=cvLu=mAiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CF841AAE.47D86%jhildebr@cisco.com> <CAHBU6itK5HtSTPWSsHsHUPja90emqU86LsgjrBorkqcUDivS2A@mail.gmail.com> <CF87EB9C.48BB0%jhildebr@cisco.com> <537A5BE0.3020406@cisco.com> <CF9FCEC9.4A4E7%jhildebr@cisco.com> <488AE66E-725D-40B3-9FDA-ADA1018BCF65@tzi.org> <CFA0F09E.4A609%jhildebr@cisco.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E115461FFE59@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <20140521020731.GG9283@mercury.ccil.org> <CFA21B5C.4A721%jhildebr@cisco.com> <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E1154629E87D@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com> <CAHBU6isO7oooeN8rH8emx-xuOrs2yzBUrhyJNYYAyzK2-QfF0w@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOih-YO-ncbSc3dVv_O7uHfjRxCDjUpzHmkFG5Dj7kb-xg@mail.gmail.com> <5384C118.4060402@cisco.com> <14DB352D-3D0C-458A-90BE-38BCA8CC98DD@tzi.org> <CAHBU6isjZjfoga_g9efiK1L=Pf40ZQXg8War+k9JDM13quHPOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/SpiN8gQznD9gwdBg4xzA3Cf9Ous
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, Matt Miller <mamille2@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Json] I-JSON Topic #5: Numbers
X-BeenThere: json@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 27 May 2014 17:48:27 -0000

On 27 May 2014, at 19:44, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> An I-JSON sender MUST NOT expect a receiver to treat a non-zero number whose absolute value is greater than 1e308 or less than 1e-308 as an exact value.  

I think James and I have successfully argued that this sentence is broken.

I have just argued that this gives a false sense of covering the issues.
Just to throw in one more issue if we want to go that far: maybe we want to mention that lots of fun can be had by interchanging 2.2250738585072011e-308 or 2.2250738585072012e-308?

Grüße, Carsten