Re: [json] Re: Universal Binary JSON Specification
- On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Tatu Saloranta <tsaloranta@...>wrote:
> **Absolutely. That's a literal interpretation (but not a sane one, i admit!).
> You have a very interesting way of reading specifications -- when spec
> does not limit magnitude or precision, you claim it's fine to use
> whatever size: by that logic, it'd be fine to only support values 0
> and 1. Or just 0.
> Put another way: if you only support a subset, then format can notInterpreted that way, all implementations must implement arbitrary-precision
> represent all valid JSON documents, and thus is just a subset, not a
> 1-to-1 equivalent.
numbers. (And that interpretation's also valid for a grammar which doesn't
specify a max length.)
So we're screwed either way ;).
As to not all environments having BigDecimal/BigInteger, that's a red
> herring -- as long as you define exact format of data, any environment"Support it", sure, but not using a 1-to-1 type mapping as is generally
> can support it, even if by just exposing array of bytes.
possible with other types.
----- stephan beal
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 9:42 AM, rkalla123 <rkalla@...> wrote:
> Stephan,For what it is worth, I also consider support for only signed values a
> No problem; your feedback are still very applicable and much appreciated.
> The additional view-point on the signed/unsigned issue was exactly what I was hoping for. My primary goal has always been simplicity and I know at least from the Java world, going with unsigned values would have made the impl distinctly *not* simple (and an annoying API).
> So I am glad to get some validation there that I am not alienating every other language at the cost of Java.
-+ Tatu +-