[Json] Re: Old Errata

[Tim Bray <[e-mail]>]

On May 28, 2026 at 11:00:22 AM, Andy Newton <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for going through this...
>
> On 5/26/26 1:55 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>
> 7617 - reject
>
>
I really disagree with all the parts of 7617


   1. The first half of the erratum (-0 and +0) is irrelevant,
   IEEE764-conforming software will Do The Right Thing.  The assertion in 8259
   that you’ll be interoperable within certain limits is correct.
   2. The second half of the erratum (JavaScript serializes -0 as “0”) is
   bad-and-weird JS behavior, but we’re stuck with it, all the libraries and
   experienced JS devs know about it, and 8259 needn't care.
   3. The proposed improvement, calling out to “rational numbers”, baffles
   me. This is about integers and only integers.
   4. The idea that 8259 should say more about how JSON numbers “should be
   interpreted” is guaranteed to be controversial and you’d probably need to
   create a new WG to hash it out, and please just no.


-Tim


7650 - not sure (conflicts with 7383)
>
>
> Why wouldn't these be Hold For Document Update to be considered as
> clarifications if/when RFC8259 is rev'ed?
>
> 7673 - reject
>
>
> I need some clue with this one.
>
> -andy, ART AD
>