On 3/26/14, 11:26 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
> On 3/20/14, 11:22 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe this just requires some adjustment in wording. The gist is
>>> that numbers should be represented in whatever way needed by the
>>> underlying rfc, i.e 5545 or 7159. If a number represented with a
>>> leading + sign is found in iCal, the same number can be represented
>>> without a leading + sign in JSON. Analogous for leading zeros. Would
>>> you prefer this is explicitly stated?
>> Yes. And I don't think it needs much text. Just let the implementer
>> know the issue is there to take care of.
> I've added the following paragraph to the Pre-processing section 3.1:
>
> NEW
> There is a subtle difference in the number representations
> between
> jCal and iCalendar. While in iCalendar a number may have leading
> zeros, as well as a leading plus sign, this is not the case
> in JSON.
> Numbers should be represented in whatever way needed for the
> underlying format.
> END
Of course that should say:
NEW
There is a subtle difference in the number representations between
JSON and iCalendar. While in iCalendar a number may have leading
zeros, as well as a leading plus sign, this is not the case in
JSON.
Numbers should be represented in whatever way needed for the
underlying format.
END
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
