On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Meral Shirazipour < [email protected]> wrote:
> Nits/editorial comments: >> >> -Please spell out acronyms at first use. E.g. JSON, I-JSON >> > > I disagree. People know what JSON stands for, and for those who don’t > spelling it out wouldn’t help. De facto, the name of the format is JSON. > Also, the mention of JavaScript is a red herring. > > I agree for JSON, but I-JSON I had to look it up. > In http://www.tbray.org/tmp/draft-ietf-json-i-json-05.html#rfc.section.1 it says: This document specifies I-JSON, short for "Internet JSON". So I think we’re probably OK here. > > I think this has been discussed elsewhere on teh thread. It’s > irritating that 64-bit integers would be string-encoded even though most > computers can handle them in hardware, but it is a real plus for > interoperability. Anyhow, the place where this advice really applies is > for huge crypto integers. > > yes, that part of the text was not clear to me. For a standards track RFC > it may be worth taking another look at it. > Actually, following on this discussion, I agree. The text originally referred to huge crypto integers and was revised to “64-bit integer” at the request of the WG. But now I see that that is sort of counter-intuitive because it assumes the subtext of “yes we know that most computers can do 64-bit ints just fine but don’t do that because stupid JavaScript”. So I think the draft needs to either fill in that backdrop, or go back to using huge crypto ints as an example. I’m inclined to put in a few words of backdrop.
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
