Re: [Json] JSON for Internet messages

[John Cowan <[e-mail]>]

Tim Bray scripsit:

> > > - All numbers MUST be of precision < 2**53 
> > Better: All numbers MUST be representable as IEEE 754:2008 binary
> > 64-bit floats.
> 
> I think my expression of the constraint is more readable, but I agree
> that yours is isomorphic.

Well, no.  1E400 requires only one bit of precision, but it's not
representable as a double, because doubles only go up to 1E308 or so.

> > The trouble with all this is that They Break Data.
> 
> I care -Inf about this.

That reminds me how *annoying* it is that there's no way to represent
Inf, -Inf, or NaN.  Too late now, I suppose.

> In my application domain, we cook these up in memory, we send them,
> we unpack them at the other end.   I agree, that if if we impose a
> new set of rules in a new RFC, previously-existing JSON might not pass
> muster as “Internet JSON” or whatever we choose to call it.

How about "Ephemeral Mini-JSON"?  Can't be too big, not expected to last.

-- 
With techies, I've generally found              John Cowan
If your arguments lose the first round          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
    Make it rhyme, make it scan                 [e-mail]
    Then you generally can
Make the same stupid point seem profound!           --Jonathan Robie