From: Jim Freeze Date: 2002-03-09T03:24:04+09:00 Subject: OT: Need XML advice on data handling Hi: Being somewhat an XML newbie, I question whether my implementation methods are sound (or proper) with the XML community). My question relies largly on the internal representation of my XML data and exporting/importing this data between my internal format and the external/textual format. I am using XML for its ability to store data hierarichally, however, after importing the data, I need to be able to work with the data in an efficient manner. The standard XML string is very limiting since much of my data is numeric. So to overcome this problem I created and Abstract XML Tree class that converts the XML data in to the form that I need. This makes it easy to manipulate the data, and when I'm done I export it back to an xml string, which may either be written to a file or parsed by some XML object, such as NQXML. Although this is convenient, the two formats are not exactly equivalent. Consider for a moment some chunk of XML data as it gets translated to my AXT internal format. +---------------+ +----------------+ +-----+ +-------------+ | XML File | => | XML DOC Format | => | AXT | => | XML | | Textual Data | | (NQXML) | | | round | File/String | +---------------+ +----------------+ +-----+ trip | Textual | +-------------+ When the data is converted to my AXT format, I do not carry over the following: 1) Comments of the form 2) Order of nodes 3) Entity references are not maintained. Not maintaining these items made AXT a lot simpler to write. However, when I make the round trip, although the 'data' is identical, the XML text files will not be. For the purposes of my project, these limitations are tolerable since the XML data is primarily read by a computer and not a person and I never overwrite an XML file that is meant for human consumption. So, after having gone to all this effort, did I waste my time? Are there standard ways of doing this without the information loss? Just wondering. Thanks -- Jim Freeze "Give some people an attoparsec and they'll take 16.093 Tera-angstroms"