Re: [Json] Limitations on number size?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Tue, 09 July 2013 16:38 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 3345921F9E18 for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 GfMuiA8M2HSy for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcahe.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DC1921F9E96 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 088B8350084 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:37:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=ZCUBlr3TXZ93/FsZ3ewI Uz7N0KY=; b=puM5livWAQKOpKv2K2vmH4KBGy2ikC1BnzGhYFIG6zEgW8sVFLTI kqtFo/qkrHbkKhU13gi1CIdiQ6PETzW+YO2erO+JCRYcFy2Gp8DjFGIfNhZMMol4 WQQwVeCd8toLnwrTMDy5WDp/eRoRI3DFV3Bc3jOpR0WqU8XHktahb4E=
Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a66.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FF7E350079 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f174.google.com with SMTP id k10so10413640wiv.1 for <json@ietf.org>; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LfZhQjD2vAAa/WZ5/ercXZKMmrQYPpeJ+KukqcYD9ms=; b=h/ouMk0OB9HNJuuEntVLB4o22OgjjGLVTnzmxXX6b7/nNRmwOUf0djn2gnJlgzgXlg 9t5ATChFkFNEZeBpSCpGd8k7oAE9WX6/yCxviSPbTk1ViRRtb1ZF6cRx8BEN5t6F7L7J 44QOvvbSxk5tRKHIyVh0mh9yug/Hqu9sQc4cW3yVZCJolWxv7tztPxmGyvDBcdK18kW+ fVPn1ZQc1R9h6t0aFM6WKWpv/9yPy/8B2cXfHybyF5KoPqKZ07aDUUo6v/e1MkXQzjpK NCQUc+S1LSO3Oce8cQKJKnjTdhGsnM4y11ZXeaTQLHeJsIbWcCv/e9rewALySkmIjNn7 0ivA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.240.169 with SMTP id wb9mr15038219wjc.90.1373387869747; Tue, 09 Jul 2013 09:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.38.138 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Jul 2013 09:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <hf8ot8hnpa93pi3t54c4d5qcc3p5tnb3ca@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <51DC0F95.7010407@gmail.com> <hf8ot8hnpa93pi3t54c4d5qcc3p5tnb3ca@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:37:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOgTNaLpRthrRcU4Bo+3z1aXUOOn0Ord7RBPN8z6TtiiWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>, 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: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 16:38:04 -0000

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> I think it is well-understood that if you need particularily small,
> big, precise or otherwise unusual numbers in JSON then it's best to
> encode them as strings so you can do the string-to-number conversion
> at a higher level than whatever JSON library you might be using today.

<semifacetious>
If that's what we should always do then why can't parsers do it automatically?
</semifacetious>