Re: xmlspec Update

[Chris Ricker <kaboom gatech edu>]

On Thu, 30 May 2002, Jeff Johnson wrote:

> It's early yet, and there's much needs doing. The immediate goal should
> be to establish a proof-of-concept example that is sufficiently
> rich and yet still (or at least mostly) one-to-one with the existing syntax.

(note:  I've not yet looked at it, since my CVS pull hasn't finished yet.  
Maybe this will be a stupid question when I do ;-)

Since you're losing backwards compatibility anyway, why even try to maintain
compatibility with the existing syntax?  Isn't the biggest problem with RPM
how crufty and poorly defined (in terms of a formal language definition) the
current spec syntax is?

later,
chris