I have received the following bug report in OMSTD 2.0 from Martin Weber.
I note there is no place on the OM site for 'errata' to the standard -
optimism on our part! I assume everyone agrees that it IS an error.
(a) We probably should have such - Paul: if you're prepared to start one,
I'll write the associated document.
(b) We must make sure it doesn't propagate into 3.0.
James
> I was surprised by an error in the standard which probably caused some
> confusion/can cause some. It's about the binary encoding of numerals.
> I quote:
>
> "Integers between -2^31 (-2147483648) and 2^31 - 1 (2147483647) are
> encoded as
> the small integer tag with the long flag set followed by the integer
> encoded in little endian format in four bytes (network byte order:
> the most significant byte comes first)" (from 3.2.2, Integers)
>
> Network byte order clearly is *big* endian, not little endian (as the
> comment in parenthesis also suggests: MSB first).
Absolutely.
> Given that, if I recall correctly, you're also involved with the
> emerging openmath standard, take this as a bug-report :)
Will do - it certainly is, and I feel doubly embarrassed, as in my
"otherwise" life I lecture on networking! I'll CC you on the bug report.
James Davenport
Visiting Full Professor, University of Waterloo
Otherwise:
Hebron & Medlock Professor of Information Technology and
Chairman, Powerful Computing WP, University of Bath
OpenMath Content Dictionary Editor and Programme Chair, OpenMath 2009
IMU Committee on Electronic Information and Communication
_______________________________________________
Om3 mailing list
[email protected]
http://openmath.org/mailman/listinfo/om3
