IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] Limitations on number size?

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Wed, 05 June 2013 01:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sayrer@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 96E3A21F8F85 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 18:40:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 xocvVggvR8YQ for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 18:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22f.google.com (mail-we0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 931C721F8FB3 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 18:40:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id t59so805703wes.20 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:40:05 -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=hhnRqt6MCSTo4II31rn110Tc1TNf3yG5INYVmqVjMKw=; b=Hw9h1Oad3oUHBjVLdDc2BEgDWuRj9cRhNzkLnSq9ylL/fMlSmcfLwo/BX76MflDDE7 /ou6S+ewlU1TphiV9l3ZNv39pg2uza463mhCMpq9VpdQD8MYg7l/meiHikgQVw85WO9c L4Dc6pjD/tT+1TyQ/OROVEC3CeM8Dm2MAlkw7JlOqVbqv586K0HmEDASlHqqaJgt/caP VhUuwqDsh9scLRAcI5fKxGedlTsjuiaXON9Z1g0Vp8oRWRlBYsLgkrWwlerOwgwbTx54 yYhUl8QyZDmyVeER6mHEe/S4o6rorznuED/+vhzsJHRQHjT+pxqn6vTDVLEd49Tuf1kT mRTQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.185.179 with SMTP id fd19mr4022821wic.1.1370396405401; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.83.35 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Jun 2013 18:40:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51AE63B1.80800@crockford.com>
References: <CAK3OfOgPGi4PKxKAGEG=PCv-xaszMqWpUUUH2B9f0UaeMMO1gQ@mail.gmail.com> <C42654A3-E218-45A8-B368-4A60CB89619D@vpnc.org> <C4D8E604-E4F8-408B-B7DD-97226300C212@tzi.org> <CAK3OfOjDp=S=HZ5LTP3L+rqq1VjhSShakmBOJD9aPiN8fSULKw@mail.gmail.com> <C30B2D0D-75A7-49A5-A190-5AD5DC1FCDCC@vpnc.org> <CAK3OfOi6uNcXLCcStg90j2LqqdyVWQeoBAd0Mad-EjFEDyixpw@mail.gmail.com> <51AE63B1.80800@crockford.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:40:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6Szu11Qtbc9JGrG-bNvq=SCN-f81dZ1GoH_sz+KvddE0nw@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c25e4cf2129404de5e46c2"
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, "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, 05 Jun 2013 01:40:08 -0000

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Douglas Crockford <douglas@crockford.com>wrote:

>
> Keep in mind that this format has been working successfully in the wild
> for over a decade. The goal here should be to do the least that is
> necessary to formally upgrade its status from Informational, not to attempt
> to fix something that is already working well enough. It is only because it
> has been working well enough that we are considering the upgrade.



Strongly agree. We should only be changing things that are incorrect or
obsolete. You can't write an interoperable JSON implementation by reading
RFC 4627 at the moment, but number precision is not one of the
deal-breakers.

- Rob

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email