TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2002-02 > 1012819104


From: "Astrid Kranzbuhler" <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Long discourse on GEDCOM and witness data
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 21:38:24 +1100
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> <5.1.0.14.0.20020203104056.00a3fec0@pop.sprynet.com>


Hi Darrell,
in my previous post I tried to address several issues at once, not just in response to your post, I probably shouldn't have done that, sorry.

And actually, I meant to describe the *GEDCOM Import* into the program 'a DISASTER', not the program itself. :-)

I agree, it's not TMG's responsibility to protect the data when it comes to *basic* GEDCOM being imported falsely by another program. But I still believe, that *stretching* the guidelines to include information which GEDCOM wasn't really designed for (and that is, IMO, what is basically being asked in this whole discussion) could produce extremely unwanted results which *we might not be aware of* if we don't know the importing program. The specific program I mentioned was just meant as an extreme example of what might happen to our carefully entered data.

When it comes to converting witness tags to GEDCOM Notes, I would have to refer to Terry Reigel's post a couple of days ago, who pointed out the difficulties connected with that possibility better than I ever could (the old: *I know what I mean* - problem :-) ).

Astrid

Darrell wrote:
> 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.
>



This thread: