[uf-rest] "typed" microformats proposal
kmarks at mac.com
Mon Feb 13 17:21:22 PST 2006
On Feb 13, 2006, at 4:49 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
> Excellent comments -- I agree with most of them. For those who don't
> know, the easiest way to see them is via history:
> I'll wait to see if anyone else has a different perspective before
> integrating Kevin's comments.
> The one area I'm most unsure about is "int" -- is there any harm in
> just calling this "any integer" rather than restricting it to "int32"?
> How would the failure/parsing modes differ?
As we aren't specifying signed/unsigned, the interpretation varies
anyway. I do like Python and Ruby's 'duck typing' approach, so
specifying types somewhat loosely is OK. Insisting on int32 overflow
behaviour may be expecting too much.
Is this a case for a SHOULD rather than a MUST ?
MUST support at least 32 bits of precision, and MAY support more ?
More information about the microformats-rest