XLinq - A better way

Question

Hi I have got this code:

XDocument xdoc = XDocument.Load(URI);
            XElement root = xdoc.Element("forecast");
            //get the values into objects
            forecast = from fc in root.Descendants("simpleforecast").Elements("forecastday")
                       select new DayForcast
                       {
                           Date = new DateTime(int.Parse(fc.Element("date").Element("year").Value),
                               int.Parse(fc.Element("date").Element("month").Value),
                               int.Parse(fc.Element("date").Element("day").Value)),
                           Condition = fc.Element("conditions").Value,
                           Max = double.Parse(fc.Element("high").Element("celsius").Value),
                           Min = double.Parse(fc.Element("low").Element("celsius").Value),
                           Icon = fc.Element("icon").Value,
                           SkyIcon = fc.Element("skyicon").Value
                       };

Although this does what I want, I want to know if there is a better way to do the fc.Element("low").Element("celsius").Value parts, so that the Element().Element() is one Element().

Here is a sample of the XML:

<?xml version="1.0" ?> 
<forecast>
<termsofservice link="http://www.wunderground.com/members/tos.asp#api" /> 
<txt_forecast>
  <date /> 
  <number /> 
</txt_forecast>
<simpleforecast>
  <forecastday>
  <period>1</period> 
  <date>
       <day>7</day> 
       <month>7</month> 
       <year>2009</year> 
       <yday>187</yday> 
       <hour>22</hour> 
  </date>
  <high>
      <fahrenheit>63</fahrenheit> 
      <celsius>17</celsius> 
  </high>
  <low>
      <fahrenheit>54</fahrenheit> 
      <celsius>12</celsius> 
  </low>
<conditions>Thunderstorm</conditions> 
<icon>tstorms</icon> 
<skyicon>cloudy</skyicon>

Thanks

Answer 1

You should consider using serialization to deserialize an DayForcast object from this xml fragment.

Answer 2

Hi,

You could use XElement.XPathSelectElements("xpathExpression") if you want to do it more concisely, but there's nothing wrong with what you've done.

Your code is more verbose and easier to read.