Re: [Json] Response to Statement from W3C TAG

["Martin J. Dürst" <[e-mail]>]

On 2013/12/08 23:44, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Martin J. Dürst wrote:
>> The textual descriptions are in some cases quite precise, but in some
>> other cases, leave quite a bit of ambiguity. And stuff like "It may have
>> an exponent of ten, prefixed by e (U+0065) or E (U+0045) and optionally
>> + (U+002B) or – (U+002D)." (in particlar the first clause of that
>> sentence) doesn't make much sense. If e.g. 1.2 has an exponent of 10,
>> it's going to be 6.1917 or so, not at all what this notation is usually
>> used for.
>
> Apparently in `x²` 2 is "an exponent of" x. That does not make much
> sense to me either, but it does appear to be a common english idiom.

Ah, I see. The problem is not with the idiom. In your example, it's okay 
to say "2 is an exponent of x" (although "2 is the exponent of x" feels 
better in some ways), as well as it's okay to say "x has an exponent of 2".

In the original text, neither are these two usages disambiguated, nor is 
there any explanation about where the "10" is coming from or how it has 
to be used.

Regards,    Martin.