Re: OT:XML Schema vs written spec
Schemas are for validation. You can check their XML when it comes in against the schema, and instantly know if it's valid. It also gives your clients the ability to test their XML on their end during development to ensure that it's valid, without having to be sending test transactions to your server. Finally, it gives you both an explicitly enforcable contract for defining the interaction, something that a simple spec can't do alone, because it can't be enforced except via human interpretation. That lets you both know that any bugs that arise can be immediately pinned on one party or another, without any bickering about oh, well your spec says this, and yes, but we meant it this way. Write the schema for the machines, write the spec for the people. Two types of users, two types of documentation. cheers, barneyb On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:49 -0500, John Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I'm creating a new xml interface that will allow our clients to connect to our system and update our records. I was researching the ways of documenting the xml structure, for the clients to use. It seems like I have at least three ways to do this. DTD's, Schemas and just writing a specification that lists the elements, and the data types allowed, and the process to connect to and update our system. In reading up on XML documentation, it appears that DTD's are being eclipsed by using Schemas. So I will either use Schemas or a spec. What is the real benefit of writing the schema, when I still will have to write a spec for them to use for the specifics of connecting to our system, general error messages and other documentation? Thanks in advance. John Stanley -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 50 invites. ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:199003 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
Re: OT:XML Schema vs written spec
DTDs will only vaidate the structure of the xml not the values, but schemas will do both the structure and the data types of the elements. The other benefit for Schema's are they are written in XML so you can transform them into printable documentation so you kill 2 birds with one scud missile. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:06:00 -0800, Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Schemas are for validation. You can check their XML when it comes in against the schema, and instantly know if it's valid. It also gives your clients the ability to test their XML on their end during development to ensure that it's valid, without having to be sending test transactions to your server. Finally, it gives you both an explicitly enforcable contract for defining the interaction, something that a simple spec can't do alone, because it can't be enforced except via human interpretation. That lets you both know that any bugs that arise can be immediately pinned on one party or another, without any bickering about oh, well your spec says this, and yes, but we meant it this way. Write the schema for the machines, write the spec for the people. Two types of users, two types of documentation. cheers, barneyb On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:49 -0500, John Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I'm creating a new xml interface that will allow our clients to connect to our system and update our records. I was researching the ways of documenting the xml structure, for the clients to use. It seems like I have at least three ways to do this. DTD's, Schemas and just writing a specification that lists the elements, and the data types allowed, and the process to connect to and update our system. In reading up on XML documentation, it appears that DTD's are being eclipsed by using Schemas. So I will either use Schemas or a spec. What is the real benefit of writing the schema, when I still will have to write a spec for them to use for the specifics of connecting to our system, general error messages and other documentation? Thanks in advance. John Stanley -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 50 invites. ~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:199006 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: OT:XML Schema vs written spec
Barney, thanks for the information. I was looking at the issue the wrong way. -Original Message- From: Barney Boisvert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 3:06 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: OT:XML Schema vs written spec Schemas are for validation. You can check their XML when it comes in against the schema, and instantly know if it's valid. It also gives your clients the ability to test their XML on their end during development to ensure that it's valid, without having to be sending test transactions to your server. Finally, it gives you both an explicitly enforcable contract for defining the interaction, something that a simple spec can't do alone, because it can't be enforced except via human interpretation. That lets you both know that any bugs that arise can be immediately pinned on one party or another, without any bickering about oh, well your spec says this, and yes, but we meant it this way. Write the schema for the machines, write the spec for the people. Two types of users, two types of documentation. cheers, barneyb On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:49 -0500, John Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I'm creating a new xml interface that will allow our clients to connect to our system and update our records. I was researching the ways of documenting the xml structure, for the clients to use. It seems like I have at least three ways to do this. DTD's, Schemas and just writing a specification that lists the elements, and the data types allowed, and the process to connect to and update our system. In reading up on XML documentation, it appears that DTD's are being eclipsed by using Schemas. So I will either use Schemas or a spec. What is the real benefit of writing the schema, when I still will have to write a spec for them to use for the specifics of connecting to our system, general error messages and other documentation? Thanks in advance. John Stanley -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 50 invites. ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:199007 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
RE: OT:XML Schema vs written spec
Thanks Rob -Original Message- From: Rob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 3:20 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: OT:XML Schema vs written spec DTDs will only vaidate the structure of the xml not the values, but schemas will do both the structure and the data types of the elements. The other benefit for Schema's are they are written in XML so you can transform them into printable documentation so you kill 2 birds with one scud missile. On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:06:00 -0800, Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Schemas are for validation. You can check their XML when it comes in against the schema, and instantly know if it's valid. It also gives your clients the ability to test their XML on their end during development to ensure that it's valid, without having to be sending test transactions to your server. Finally, it gives you both an explicitly enforcable contract for defining the interaction, something that a simple spec can't do alone, because it can't be enforced except via human interpretation. That lets you both know that any bugs that arise can be immediately pinned on one party or another, without any bickering about oh, well your spec says this, and yes, but we meant it this way. Write the schema for the machines, write the spec for the people. Two types of users, two types of documentation. cheers, barneyb On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:55:49 -0500, John Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All, I'm creating a new xml interface that will allow our clients to connect to our system and update our records. I was researching the ways of documenting the xml structure, for the clients to use. It seems like I have at least three ways to do this. DTD's, Schemas and just writing a specification that lists the elements, and the data types allowed, and the process to connect to and update our system. In reading up on XML documentation, it appears that DTD's are being eclipsed by using Schemas. So I will either use Schemas or a spec. What is the real benefit of writing the schema, when I still will have to write a spec for them to use for the specifics of connecting to our system, general error messages and other documentation? Thanks in advance. John Stanley -- Barney Boisvert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 360.319.6145 http://www.barneyb.com/ Got Gmail? I have 50 invites. ~| Logware (www.logware.us): a new and convenient web-based time tracking application. Start tracking and documenting hours spent on a project or with a client with Logware today. Try it for free with a 15 day trial account. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=67 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:199008 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
