On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Anders Rundgren < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 2018-03-16 19:51, Mike Samuel wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 2:43 PM, Anders Rundgren < >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >> wrote: >> >> On 2018-03-16 19:30, Mike Samuel wrote: >> >> 2. Any numbers with minimal changes: dropping + signs, >> normalizing zeros, >> using a fixed threshold for scientific notation. >> PROS: supports whole JSON value-space >> CONS: less useful for hashing >> CONS: risks loss of precision when decoders decide based on >> presence of >> decimal point whether to represent as double or int. >> >> >> Have you actually looked into the specification? >> https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/security/draft-rundgren-jso >> n-canonicalization-scheme.html#rfc.section.3.2.2 < >> https://cyberphone.github.io/doc/security/draft-rundgren-js >> on-canonicalization-scheme.html#rfc.section.3.2.2> >> ES6 has all what it takes. >> >> >> Yes, but other notions of canonical equivalence have been mentioned here >> so reasons to prefer one to another seem in scope. >> > > Availability beats perfection anytime. This is the VHS (if anybody > remember that old story) of canonicalization and I don't feel too bad about > that :-) Perhaps. Any thoughts on my question about the merits of "Hashable" vs "Canonical"?
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
