IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Json] -0.0

R S <sayrer@gmail.com> Mon, 30 September 2013 00:47 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 6A46A21F8F9A for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, 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 kwGsvDDmp2sU for <json@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:47:29 -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 C7DB021F99FB for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f43.google.com with SMTP id gh4so3281953qeb.2 for <json@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:47:27 -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=uXbtrnsdCA0/ZkPEEanHqMaJhyp2hvIEF1mhF1E301s=; b=cNyMSLrRKLYHhXkTlz4/lKND7YSOUkzD20ub67LnwXl+aW913CXzuYol56FfU5v+IH 3FLQvv60SmQb9xNKXYi8JEbl4fo4wnUjh748JwgN/w3LyIN+G2Ah/5vXqgMgfoNNdVy9 cGh9dxnTg5K8rtDVhKMcuf7O/CAbavBLhxdxu5x+5aeXeCMsbpRfpIE5xktnAy4uR50Z N0Fsk3UB7AbwKX/GlF27tuxfWExeVytb7es525KJTjotra1KlN/fo2Sfh75KoBobZ60/ AgrV5eHBMGNrqTaIlae55549Q8YfosZ3qHyXZ3uz0hcE7Y0R33F/UVkz06H1nuBaDH+U b2ew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.229.204.197 with SMTP id fn5mr25076542qcb.5.1380502046206; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.86.147 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:47:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAHBU6is6w6WpsYOeOP=yMREAhz90+J4OPC6uVB+nXca2aJMmpg@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> <9D959999-63A2-46EF-8C14-C48F586D9DA4@tzi.org> <CAChr6Sz4Hg--YrWnxXOxJJmbx=AmjDoEZXxs7HeTV58w5VSRDg@mail.gmail.com> <25C6CA6F-76F0-42DE-8845-850B8B69F1A6@tzi.org> <CAHBU6is6w6WpsYOeOP=yMREAhz90+J4OPC6uVB+nXca2aJMmpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:47:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAChr6Sz-u0G=78NcRPvgHjBi7Vk_TxKppNc0cmE3cTLDcTSM7w@mail.gmail.com>
From: R S <sayrer@gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1f6421373da04e78f2e41"
Cc: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.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: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 00:47:29 -0000

On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Yeah, but my opinion is shifting here... it's starting to feel to me like
> there's nothing remotely JSON-specific about the problems around -0.  Let
> me see, if I were going to do another draft based on what people have been
> saying here, I'd, in Section 6
>
> - Remove "are represented without "frac" or "exp" parts (for example as 3
> not 3.0)"
> - Lose the whole paragraph beginning "Numbers which represent zero without
> a sign...
>
> Less is more. Is anyone passionate about keeping either?
>

Removing that text is a good idea.

Section 9, "Parsers", currently reads:

> An implementation may set limits on the range of numbers.

That text should be adjusted to allow implementations to set limits on
range and precision, since that obviously happens in practice.

- Rob

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status