Re: [Json] Limitations on number size?

"Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> Wed, 10 July 2013 12:18 UTC

Return-Path: <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
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 E9F3921F9E85 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 05:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MSGID_MULTIPLE_AT=1.449]
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 HIaukRz4ZAt1 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 05:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74AA21F9F7C for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 05:18:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Vostro3500 ([77.117.247.54]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MU0pN-1UnmYF0MXB-00Qjam for <json@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:18:42 +0200
From: "Markus Lanthaler" <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
To: <json@ietf.org>
References: <51DC0F95.7010407@gmail.com> <hf8ot8hnpa93pi3t54c4d5qcc3p5tnb3ca@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CAK3OfOgTNaLpRthrRcU4Bo+3z1aXUOOn0Ord7RBPN8z6TtiiWw@mail.gmail.com> <51DC7F87.6060503@gmail.com> <CAGrxA24v5L7oCGxEOwecJSLCNiLrSWSt=jFJMA0M9E8fztNLag@mail.gmail.com> <51DC95B2.8080801@gmail.com> <20130709231139.GC8043@gmail.com> <51DCA042.4000303@gmail.com> <CAKd4nAjHE8_4hWMG7jSzv=_VsoKb-cqNdX4CR+6R-p1WkQnDTQ@mail.gmail.com> <51DD3248.3020008@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51DD3248.3020008@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:18:37 +0200
Message-ID: <003c01ce7d67$9bf0b4f0$d3d21ed0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac59VT7SKn3YFxBCRaGsyhUsqAYupAAEgHKA
Content-Language: de
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:2z9NqAMIoUYo97uA6dkasPnwnAQQ00qydZDnxD0MA0H/Dtg19W+ O2Tf8Xb4fplXdIzXcur93bCWXvJCUhcF36GQnrVsvG2rdcach2LBJZKZqu8kgy+MDV9wMJ2 PhUOK95ept1MSC7iJh/7GjXXfdNwPkccm/qOOphKwfVhVPiegwfRnwgw0sIYndMfrVB/Ey4 RmBa2uxI0CMbm7ofG1ENw==
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 12:18:57 -0000

On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 12:07 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I would appreciate some evidence to back up the claim that the vast, vast
> majority of JSON is handled in an environment where the JSON numbers 0 and
0.0
> do indeed represent the same thing. The RDF W3C workiing group is in the
last
> stages of putting its stamp of approval on JSON-LD, which presents the
JSON
> numbers 0 and 0.0 to RDF as being different.

That's just wrong. When converting JSON-LD to RDF both 0 and 0.0 will result
in a "0"^^xsd:integer.


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler