Hi John,
- A simpler XML approach is to use elements named root-node, left-node, and right-node. That reduces the number of levels in the tree by half.
Sorry, I am not clear on what you are suggesting. Do you mean this (recursive) design:
<binary-tree>
<root-node>
<value>root</value>
<left-node>
<value>A</value>
<left-node>
<value>C</value>
</left-node>
<right-node>
<value>D</value>
</right-node>
</left-node>
<right-node>
<value>B</value>
<left-node>
<value>E</value>
</left-node>
<right-node>
<value>F</value>
</right-node>
</right-node>
</root-node>
</binary-tree>
That doesn’t reduce the number of levels in the tree.
/Roger
From: John Cowan <johnwcowan@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 4, 2019 1:13 PM
To: Costello, Roger L. <costello@mitre.org>
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: [EXT] Re: [xml-dev] Representing binary trees in XML … flat versus recursive
Recursive Implementation
The root node consists of a value, an optional left subtree, and an optional right subtree.
A subtree is a node.
A node consists of a value, an optional left subtree, and an optional right subtree.
Here is a recursive XML representation of the above binary tree:
A simpler XML approach is to use elements named root-node, left-node, and right-node. That reduces the number of levels in the tree by half.
In addition, I don't know of any parsers that use recursion in the language to support recursion in the tree; the nesting is normally stored as an array of element objects, either fixed (in which case you get an error) or growable. Such
a structure can of course be traversed in XSLT, but not with native traversal mechanisms.. Your flat representation doesn't gain you much, then.
John Cowan http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org
Cash registers don't really add and subtract;
they only grind their gears.
But then they don't really grind their gears, either;
they only obey the laws of physics. --Unknown
|
