[Json] Where did we end up on negative zeros?

Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> Mon, 07 October 2013 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <tbray@textuality.com>
X-Original-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: json@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C678F11E8128 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.976
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G25Bi+Ek91Ce for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ve0-f171.google.com (mail-ve0-f171.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 424D811E8120 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ve0-f171.google.com with SMTP id pa12so4109631veb.30 for <json@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=3c6jt8k3Zgo9BkT7lXuZcrII1F/dKZ/JuY3xZitzbKY=; b=WuFTk777Q4cOBVPMR2/M/8JDcgLnnqbFsA18rGnbvqVOUkhGmRRVB0TnYEFfd/QSsb TFjsVRrtr4ediOb3OKudi/bQpzWR4jZ/mC9v4JVpI+DmtFwpKCoSwNXVU8V2lO/E6Wfn JmhikSiBvOd55i38y0jzDU9OyYdpzxDF18ylaOHkqAAFtd5iZamalJm8J22oEdmILO3J /SEfxtQ017ljleQnMwNHFCUlSE6pu22whiijan8O71eAhg9OyDF2e+92oFmgFiJmwc0s WHcVSBaZthHey3O3H03jAyumC7oDGfsiCfGhe5ZIUKwPKj66QUCcT3sX3vPgeZPvkGr8 WOYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmTbYauxnRpupIR+MYdlPAh6By27WEjAHDjgw2z5GqfhH0IcpTLARoCW/J4tp+OXvNpTwYy
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id z20mr27879828vcz.0.1381172800360; Mon, 07 Oct 2013 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: []
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 12:06:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHBU6iu7TMwRTibK54L5C-+TcC4Q9C-k8+MwALTDVtV_6=-mJg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
To: "json@ietf.org" <json@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3ec7023a50704e82b5a4d"
Subject: [Json] Where did we end up on negative zeros?
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: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 19:06:47 -0000

I’m trying to cook up a new draft and I think the trend of WG discussion
was pretty clear on most things, but the email threads around warning
against -0.0 (or not) got too twisted for me.

There is text on this in the -04 draft; my best guess is that the WG
*probably* leans to taking it out, on the grounds that people who actually
care about this stuff will have been burned enough not to trust transport
syntaxes to automatically do the right thing and anyhow it’s horribly
language-specific.  But I could be wrong. Also, I don’t care; speak up if
you do.