- From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:21:19 +0200
- To: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Thursday, April 04, 2013 4:18 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: > I don't see that you should separate them: > > RFC 4627: > [[ > JSON's design goals were for it to be minimal, portable, textual, and > a subset of JavaScript. > ]] > (and reference to ECMAscript) > > so while JSON syntax may allow long numbers, there is implicitly a > limit > to the range/precision of floating point doubles. > > It would be better to note that xsd:int is safe but xsd:integer is not > for javascript. OK, I've added a sentence [1]. The relevant paragraph now looks as follows: [[[ When JSON-native numbers, are converted to RDF, lossless data round-tripping can not be guaranteed as rounding errors might occur. When converting RDF to JSON-LD, similar rounding errors might occur. Furthermore, the datatype or the lexical representation might be lost. An xsd:double with a value of 2.0 will, e.g., result in an xsd:integer with a value of 2 in canonical lexical form when converted from RDF to JSON-LD and back to RDF. It is important to highlight that in practice it might be impossible to losslessly convert an xsd:integer to a number because its value space is not limited. While the JSON specification [RFC4627] does not limit the value space of numbers either, concrete implementations do have a limited value space. To ensure lossless round-tripping the Converting from RDF algorithm specifies an use native types flag... ]]] I didn't mention xsd:int to not make it too confusing. [1] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/commit/111f7106801fd4a4e1367f8d6bd7ea 94671e08b4 -- Markus Lanthaler @markuslanthaler
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2013 15:21:59 UTC