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

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 22 May 2014 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 CE4111A01ED for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 09:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.044
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.044 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 yunpSGP7aLbk for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2014 09:15:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a24.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C2A1A022A for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2014 09:15:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a24.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a24.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0DE92C808D for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2014 09:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=06pb94Uvq6XUJwP3rA4l CUOLM3Y=; b=iqk04arzuoEM0RZhoH5QTVW0Qc8KeVWIMVZSEQQMnYLiPTyBBqmf ewH+c6/nJ40sSKsrcofK0P7PUW1axnokz1pKUE2yiWxUWzHl6XuEp5Z8Bf8npZUO UaL/HxOqAH2mZGhjTk8Y159OBB7BxuXvyBmn4g2i+rV8NBaCN4IOdVk=
Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com (mail-wg0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a24.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7CAF02C8089 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2014 09:15:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id l18so3663884wgh.35 for <json@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2014 09:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.185.244 with SMTP id ff20mr17383062wic.42.1400775299160; Thu, 22 May 2014 09:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.29.200 with HTTP; Thu, 22 May 2014 09:14:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6isO7oooeN8rH8emx-xuOrs2yzBUrhyJNYYAyzK2-QfF0w@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 11:14:59 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOih-YO-ncbSc3dVv_O7uHfjRxCDjUpzHmkFG5Dj7kb-xg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/UBquzgNRgaZJ8KI0ftAowY5bCTM
Cc: IETF JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
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: Thu, 22 May 2014 16:15:24 -0000

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
--