[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: xmlspec Update

On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 10:02:07AM -0600, Chris Ricker wrote:
> 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?

Poorly designed or not, the existing spec file parser will have to be
retained for quite awhile, probably forever. That does not have to stop
development of a new and better (and alternative) XML parser.

Heck it's *just* a syntax issue, albeit important.

73 de Jeff

Jeff Johnson	ARS N3NPQ
jbj@redhat.com (jbj@jbj.org)
Chapel Hill, NC

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []