Re: [Json] JSON and int64s - any change in current best practice since I-JSON

[Tim Bray <[e-mail]>]

 I would so so love to fix up JSON just a little bit. Lose the
(syntactically superfluous) commas, RFC3733 date literals, add a couple of
numeric types. I can dream the impossible dream.

CBOR’s fine but I’ve never managed to convince myself that the advantages
of binary over text are worth the aggravation.

On Jan 16, 2024 at 8:49:38 PM, Joe Hildebrand <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Another approach on the horizon is:
>
> https://github.com/tc39/proposal-json-parse-with-source
>
> Still, moving to CBOR is likely to get you much better interoperability,
> as mentioned in this thread.
>
> —
> Joe Hildebrand
>
> On Jan 16, 2024, at 3:04 PM, Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> To suggest a positive path forward:
>
>
> https://es.discourse.group/t/cbor-js-and-the-cbor-object/1759
>
>
> That is the better fix in my opinion, because BigInts are not the only
> problem.
>
>
> JavaScript has precise number types now (Uint8Array etc etc), and CBOR can
> represent these well.
>
>
> Browsers also have another serialization method called "Structured Clone",
> which does a lot more than JSON:
>
>
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Workers_API/Structured_clone_algorithm
>
>
> I mention this one to show that CBOR is totally tractable here.
>
>
> People often try to adjust JSON or write schema systems to deal with these
> issues, but CBOR is a better way forward (imo) because it fixes many issues
> all at once.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 9:09 AM Rob Sayre <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> I had the same thought as Pete a while back, but found that JS engines
> actually bar you from encoding these as JSON:
>
>
> > let two_55th = BigInt(2) ** BigInt(55)
>
> > two_55th
>
> 36028797018963968n
>
> > JSON.stringify(two_55th)
>
> VM189:1 Uncaught TypeError: Do not know how to serialize a BigInt
>
>     at JSON.stringify (<anonymous>)
>
>     at <anonymous>:1:6
>
>
> I can't find the reference for this one, but the reason they gave was that
> /adding/ support broke too much running code, even though it would be easy
> to add, since the second command there sure does stringify that number.
>
>
> I think the issue was that too many programs rely on JSON.parse returning
> a JavaScript Number type (distinct from BigInt), so you'll run into
> problems like this TypeError:
>
>
> > let my_plain_number = JSON.parse("42")
>
> > my_plain_number
>
> 42
>
> > my_plain_number + two_55th
>
> VM429:1 Uncaught TypeError: Cannot mix BigInt and other types, use
> explicit conversions
>
>     at <anonymous>:1:17
>
>
> So, I-JSON remains correct.
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 7:11 AM Tim Bray <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Carsten is right. You probably wouldn’t use JSON if you weren’t likely to
> be interchanging it with other parties over the network, other parties you
> don’t control.  For quite a while, it has been quite likely that the other
> parties use JavaScript, and the limits I-JSON places on numbers are a
> result of this fact. This fact isn’t going away AFAIK.
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2024 at 6:22:31 AM, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Pete,
>
> >
>
> >> On 2024-01-16, at 14:46, Pete Cordell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> Hi All,
>
> >>
>
> >> In I-JSON it recommends encoding 64-bit values using a string because
> many parsers (in particular browsers) always represent numbers using
> floating point doubles.
>
> >
>
> > (many parsers == JavaScript’s JSON.parse)
>
> >
>
> >> We're over 8 years on from I-JSON and browsers now support things like
> BigInt.
>
> >
>
> > I’d say the problem wasn’t so much the absence of BigInt, but the fact
> that JavaScript’s JSON.parse always parses JSON numbers as a JavaScript
> Number, which is exact only inside (-2**53, 2**53).
>
> >
>
> >> Therefore, I'd be interested to hear if there is any community change
> of opinion on how 64-bit ints should be handled in JSON.
>
> >
>
> > I think we’d first need wide support for a new equivalent to JSON.parse
> in JavaScript.
>
> >
>
> > Grüße, Carsten
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > json mailing list
>
> > [e-mail]
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> json mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> json mailing list
>
> [e-mail]
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> json mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/json
>