IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Limitations on number size?

Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@gmail.com> Wed, 10 July 2013 01:09 UTC

Return-Path: <tsaloranta@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 906CC21F9AC1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.543
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 SnfFLerb4+8M for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:09:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 238AD21F9ACD for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:09:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id x54so5407457wes.32 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:09:03 -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=p/7ICDujihguOZXd3zwPCrYkyqKO+xwmeiweefdUXQQ=; b=rgzweFQLvNE4dtTSWBypfHolCCf84U2ApL8i9mhpEaVP9nDhQCUFcegGKiG2JcviMS 0P6kG91Pe/axJ8V31aeL6TjCsdVCYQOFHS2kF1N2lUTInt9dYwL+qFdFGgnfrq9FeDVt +G+nxfKRF+nJJgOfRQxNXZJGZZsyO8rzF3l5RD4GZ+LG7IKZNz9qqIvfoxANhBai6LwW zKofKbKp99t8YHoSbI29ppjRvmKnfSGGnIt3u2/z5PRRNJcCFirhpYOojaD2k5uaYax3 06FTBTliJj85D3quydJS0Bj1jAWTcc7UeBFXARiFqtiPFrUiH1hxgeKx1ba6aGcFAAWn wlXQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.11.146 with SMTP id q18mr14567704wib.50.1373418542841; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.227.34.199 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 18:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51DC92B1.7000908@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>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 18:09:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGrxA27-LQA=KVdSxq5CngesSYqGbqAu9LYV+fMUWaY5cke-FA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c24d165fc63904e11dec14"
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Jorge Chamorro <jorge@jorgechamorro.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "json@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 01:09:10 -0000

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 07/09/2013 03:19 PM, Jorge Chamorro wrote:
>
>> On 09/07/2013, at 23:24, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> Imagine my surprise when I was told that my reasoning was not correct.
>>>
>> A "JSON number" is a *text* not a number:
>>
>
> OK, OK.  A JSON number represents a number.   I'm guilty of not being
> appropriately pedantic.
>
> But everything that I've read about JSON indicates that JSON is supposed
> to be used for (portably) interchanging data.  If all there is to JSON is
> the grammar then what's the point of JSON?
>
>
Proof is in pudding. JSON has been used successfully for years now for
interchanging data.
I can't recall a case where number precision had actually been reported as
a problem; even though it is obvious that something could go wrong
somewhere.
So while JSON is under-specified, it turns out that actual systems have
been successfully built and Just Work.

All alarmism aside it is easy to get tangled in the web of _potential_
issues. Same is true with many discussed aspects, including mortal danger
of duplicate names. For some reasons it has not registered as a reported
issue for library implementors (as far as I know).

-+ Tatu +-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email