More notes

This commit is contained in:
Tony Garnock-Jones 2018-10-02 13:07:18 +01:00
parent 9cb8ef45c9
commit cf250b9245
1 changed files with 10 additions and 1 deletions

View File

@ -1384,7 +1384,10 @@ what? Some domain-specific base URI?
Q. Literal small integers: are they pulling their weight? They're not Q. Literal small integers: are they pulling their weight? They're not
absolutely necessary. They mess up the connection between absolutely necessary. They mess up the connection between
value-ordering and repr-ordering! value-type-ordering and repr-tag-ordering! (The connection between
*value* ordering and *repr* ordering is already irretrievably messed
up: length prefixes blow lexicographic ordering away, sign bits are
the wrong way around, floats are sign-magnitude, etc etc.)
Q. Should we go for trying to make the data ordering line up with the Q. Should we go for trying to make the data ordering line up with the
encoding ordering? We'd have to only use streaming forms, and avoid encoding ordering? We'd have to only use streaming forms, and avoid
@ -1416,4 +1419,10 @@ should it be changed to case-sensitive?
TODO: Examples of the ordering. `"bzz" < "c" < "caa"`; `#true < 3 < "3" < |3|` TODO: Examples of the ordering. `"bzz" < "c" < "caa"`; `#true < 3 < "3" < |3|`
TODO: Probably should add a canonicalized subset. Consider adding
explicit "I promise this is canonical" marker, like a BOM, which
identifies a binary value as (first) binary and (second, optionally)
as canonical. UTF-8 disallows byte `0xFF` from appearing anywhere in a
text; this might be a good candidate for a marker sequence.
## Notes ## Notes