instance equality - trailing zeroes are insignificant?

[asgs]

Hello! The spec says that trailing zeroes are insignificant when it comes to instance equality.

Was it meant as leading zeroes instead? Also, I'm assuming this is referring to the fields of type "number". Please clarify.

[Relequestual]

That's actually a really good point... No idea how that skipped through the net. I believe you are correct.

@awwright @handrews could either of you confirm this?

[Relequestual]

The intention may have been trailing zeroes AFTER the decimal place, but I agree it's somewhat ambigious.

[awwright]

Yeah that can probably be better worded. It's just an informative sentence, but maybe we could update it to say "insignificant zeros" (leading or excess in a decimal part)

…

On Jan 4, 2017 03:02, "Ben Hutton" ***@***.***> wrote: The intention may have been trailing zeroes AFTER the decimal place, but I agree it's somewhat ambigious. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#221 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAatDad1iHkBw0EjoKyt1ci_nsWBLZ9sks5rO24igaJpZM4LaY-0> .

[Relequestual]

OK. I'll self assign to make a PR on this one.

[awwright]

Cool. Also, j/k on my leading zeros part, I recalled the JSON ABNF doesn't permit that.

…

On Jan 4, 2017 10:43, "Ben Hutton" ***@***.***> wrote: OK. I'll self assign to make a PR on this one. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#221 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAatDXsd5gRKI4pu52Ee-DBu2VPJJArfks5rO8w7gaJpZM4LaY-0> .

[handrews]

This just intends to say that differences in trailing zeros do not impact equality because they are not mathematically significant, right? 1, 1.0, and 1.00000 are all mathematically equivalent, so as instances they are equal. This is different from JSON equality as discussed in RFC 7159 which just discusses equality in terms of encoded strings.

[awwright]

Here's some examples as I understand the concern and behavior of JSON: `01` is invalid JSON `1.0`==`1.00` But `10`!=`100` (I.e. the spec should say leading zeros in the fractional part)

…

On Jan 5, 2017 15:04, "Henry Andrews" ***@***.***> wrote: This just intends to say that differences in trailing zeros do not impact equality because they are not mathematically significant, right? 1, 1.0, and 1.00000 are all mathematically equivalent, so as instances they are equal. This is different from JSON equality as discussed in RFC 7159 which just discusses equality in terms of encoded strings. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#221 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAatDeYf3BQjcKDoj6E8k_nQLPmBv1trks5rPUy9gaJpZM4LaY-0> .

[handrews]

@awwright I don't think that JSON Schema needs to clutter itself with explanations that 10 and 100 are different numbers.

[awwright]

I mean *trailing zeros in the fractional part On Jan 5, 2017 16:05, "Austin William Wright" <aaa@bzfx.net> wrote: Here's some examples as I understand the concern and behavior of JSON: `01` is invalid JSON `1.0`==`1.00` But `10`!=`100` (I.e. the spec should say leading zeros in the fractional part)

…

On Jan 5, 2017 15:04, "Henry Andrews" ***@***.***> wrote: This just intends to say that differences in trailing zeros do not impact equality because they are not mathematically significant, right? 1, 1.0, and 1.00000 are all mathematically equivalent, so as instances they are equal. This is different from JSON equality as discussed in RFC 7159 which just discusses equality in terms of encoded strings. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#221 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAatDeYf3BQjcKDoj6E8k_nQLPmBv1trks5rPUy9gaJpZM4LaY-0> .

[awwright]

Can we just say "excess zeros" here instead?