On Mon, Mar 09, 2009 at 11:52:46AM -0700, Chris Anderson wrote: > I guess I was trying to punt on a canonical format, because of things > like this. In my estimation, the format could be less-than-canonical > and still capable of being reliably signed, if the signature is > willing to put bounds on the precision needed to remain valid. There > will be edge cases, but maybe we can discourage them by disallowing E > notation, so that all numbers would have to be in plain old > int.something format and if the signature wants to treat > 0.13421143112e-12 as "0.00" that's it's business. Not perfect, but > better than disallowing floats?
My company produce price feeds using decimals, and we need those decimals to be decimals. For that reason, and after much messing about and research, I decided that we should use strings for all non-int numerical values. I would be supportive of a canonicalisation format that followed this rationale. -- Noah Slater, http://tumbolia.org/nslater
