TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-02 > 1012754993


From: "Darrell A. Martin" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Long discourse on GEDCOM and witness data
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 10:49:53 -0600
References: <3C5C47B0.1830.B27A9C@localhost><5.1.0.14.2.20020202071024.0d30fdb0@mail.hwrd1.md.home.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020202022259.00a0d590@pop.sprynet.com><5.1.0.14.0.20020202205107.00a10900@pop.sprynet.com>
In-Reply-To: <000201c1aca9$0a6c3a40$895132d2@good>


Hi, Astrid:

You took a program that you described as "a DISASTER" and then argued from
the way that it behaved that TMG should take steps to protect the user from
that other program. Well, remember, you called the other program a disaster
for a reason <grin>. What if it made death records out of GEDCOM BAPM tags?
How would TMG protect the user of the other program? The answer is, it's
not TMG's problem in a case like that.

My intention in suggesting that, how another program interpreted a GEDCOM
generated by TMG was irrelevant, was very strictly limited to the GEDCOM
NOTE tag. It is my clear understanding that attempting to create structured
links from a NOTE tag, other than simply linking it to the individual
record of which it is part, is a very bad thing for a receiving program to
do. It is not reasonable for the generating program to expect that the
receiving program would do that. (I have just read that NOTE tags might be
included in GEDCOM records of other types. I am not including that
situation in this discussion.)

Darrell


Darrell A. Martin
a native Vermonter currently in exile in Addison, Illinois



This thread: