- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 16:16:52 +1100
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Are you thinking 2^53-1 (the largest integer that can be faithfully represented in JS) or 2^32-1 (the largest integer that can be treated as an integer in JS)? I see from the reference you are probably thinking the former. The latter might be safer if you can justify it though. Are there cases where the larger range might be needed? I have a feeling that the answer is "yes", because 4Gb isn't that big a value and we have range header fields. Is that what you are thinking? On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 1:03 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > I've just opened <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/737>. > > """ > Working on evert/structured-headers, @evert noticed that representing the full range of SH integers is hard, and going beyond it can cause problems. > > Given JS's place in the Web ecosystem and the relative rarity of headers that need integers that big (as well as the availability of floats), should we consider limiting the range of integer to match JS? > """ > > Relevant link: http://2ality.com/2013/10/safe-integers.html > > > Thoughts? > > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2018 05:17:23 UTC