IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] -0.0

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Fri, 27 September 2013 22:20 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 2D56A21F9DCB for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:20:23 -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 Fn7l7NCTXK8b for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-x22b.google.com (mail-qe0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68AB521F9DC7 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f43.google.com with SMTP id gh4so2260389qeb.2 for <json@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:20:21 -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=xMRJLN3PmiBYxY3JeYF7feYZjZ/Dtav1ipSdW4u/CfM=; b=cleh3m7X2tMtHoYD2llqeJ/RSoopsTLy0UCmr8VRxs3nRUIaw61Mq+q5S7BF6gxrkh EY/J9mmxfTTxb/H8+HScwtvJv02puJnqNSDL51g+rQySZQnuwvbG4FJzM+FIyQYrGq0k WwzwPKaXD3xHKE9otx5nruc376W2pBVgNmh39DjOrD3qnctSOrBY5LMEG0Wd7jovsSYH ZAidYI+UOkdl3sufBtJn8nTvhoDi/LHP6zIGkq87rBbprUW75pv7bTfWpif2XwMMbH3E ehNHO9oRGVgwvMZZI1JHhtJ4TQNUBpsBMCzUC4Zgvd0T3SMOFezFt+fffzF/v6+SJU8l N1Dg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.114.81 with SMTP id d17mr17070481qaq.18.1380320421898; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6SxYSzXGf5hrVNvmdmpHU2R+cKSH+37NhTc--6iDpfXG3g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1BB0B@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SyznBktmOLpT-EiZ5Nm_0jZ16M0tOo4aZ_jhSDb=HHDqg@mail.gmail.com> <6D5CFCAD-5B75-4246-BE42-D42E4D35C344@vpnc.org> <CAChr6SzEBdgF_Cv2ZnC1Oo2CnL06dwZqsOKA=HTVkgArcTyLEw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBU6iu=LbwcZgEPzKgurR7s+jCUeVMEagq1knzOBWUky9SLoA@mail.gmail.com> <52454988.5030706@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <20130927214137.GC24460@mercury.ccil.org> <BF7E36B9C495A6468E8EC573603ED9411EF1E1E5@xmb-aln-x11.cisco.com> <CAChr6SxfAv+yjEzsn2R=S79MviRN+bYak=8Nnnkw9hfs3p1zxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SxYSzXGf5hrVNvmdmpHU2R+cKSH+37NhTc--6iDpfXG3g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 15:20:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6SwMbYR2pG0R3jqTxCp2Ve=fRsm9ELUe7+EvzVtSVNoc6A@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bea3a346c73af04e764e424"
Cc: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Json] -0.0
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: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 22:20:23 -0000

Further, let me hasten to add that this thread is titled "-0.0" and I wrote:

> I don't think there is a rationale for the text on -0.0.

I did not write "negative zero" or "-0".

I think this thread and the text in the draft shows that the WG didn't
fully understand what the chairs took to be consensus. It was nearly a
mistake, but it would have been *fine* if the WG let the existing
"implementations may place limitations on the range of numbers accepted"
text stand. Why not do that?

- Rob



On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM, R S <sayrer@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, September 27, 2013, R S wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Matt Miller (mamille2) <
>> mamille2@cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It appears to me that we are rehashing arguments made when this text was
>>> first discussed.  Are we bringing up any new considerations here?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. The text in the current draft refers to both -0 and -0.0 as though
>> they are interoperable.
>>
>
> Rather, it refers to them both as though they have the same
> interoperability considerations.
>
> - Rob
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email