Are you after a sort by hierarchical depth... How close an object is to the ground? That is the pattern implied in your example output. Your example data is delemeter free. This makes for smaller data storage... But you have to make up for that advantage through increased processing complexity and or parseing performance. Which of these three factors is most important given the task at hand? The Xml standards people must have recomendations for ontology manipulation. Why this extra step: the data in two forms?
-----Original Message----- From: "Bernard Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "How to use Revolution" <[email protected]> Sent: 9/11/2008 12:27 PM Subject: Re: Walking Trees Backwards Oops, forgot to include an example input = task1 task1.a task1.b task1.b.1 task2 task2.a task2.a.1 task2.b task2.c task3 output = task1.b.1 task2.a.1 task1.a task1.b task2.a task2.b task2.c task1 task2 task3 Bernard _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
