| From: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Joey Adams <joeyadams3(dot)14159(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Initial Review: JSON contrib modul was: Re: Another swing at JSON |
| Date: | 2011-07-25 10:49:18 |
| Message-ID: | EB252E7E-9E65-45CA-B1A8-A8AE16D9DC9A@phlo.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jul25, 2011, at 02:03 , Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Jul25, 2011, at 00:48 , Joey Adams wrote:
>> Should we follow the JavaScript standard for rendering numbers (which
>> my suggestion approximates)? Or should we use the shortest encoding
>> as Florian suggests?
>
> In the light of the above, consider my suggestion withdrawn. I now think
> we should just follow the JavaScript standard as closely as possible.
> As you said, it's pretty much the same as your suggestion, just more precise
> in the handling of some corner-cases like infinity, nan, +/-0, some
> questions of leading and trailing zeros, ...
Just FYI, I browsed through the ECMA Standard you referenced again, and realized
that they explicitly forbid JSON numeric values to be NaN or (-)Infinity
(Page 205, Step 9 at the top of the page). RFC 4627 seems to take the same stand.
I fail to see the wisdom in that, but it's what the standard says...
best regards,
Florian Pflug
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-07-25 10:56:12 | Re: Policy on pulling in code from other projects? |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-07-25 08:37:54 | Re: Initial Review: JSON contrib modul was: Re: Another swing at JSON |