TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041431197


From: Richard Cleaveland <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] GEDCOM export missing county
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 09:26:37 -0500
References: <000901c2b02a$b3e15800$6401a8c0@charliexii><5.2.0.9.2.20021230105941.01638b48@mail.richard.cleaveland.name><001401c2b018$1a04efb0$6401a8c0@charliexii> <3E0E3DBE.73DFFFAF@sbcglobal.net><5.2.0.9.2.20021230071337.014be4c0@mail.richard.cleaveland.name><5.2.0.9.2.20021230105941.01638b48@mail.richard.cleaveland.name><5.2.0.9.2.20021230122121.0168b4d8@mail.richard.cleaveland.name>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20021231203134.02fb7ca8@pop3.norton.antivirus>


At 08:33 PM 12/31/2002, Lee Hoffman wrote:
>Jim Byram wrote:
>>You always need to keep the GEDCOM limits in mind when recording TMG data if
>>you start recording data that GEDCOM doesn't support.
>
>This is probably the best way to do it. But how many people understand
>GEDCOM at that level? All the more reason to get rid of GEDCOM (at least
>as soon as the LDS Church no longer receives data in GEDCOM form)!! <g>

And until then* all the more reason for TMG to mark in some way those data
elements or tags which will not transfer via GEDCOM. <g><g>

Dick

I suspect that will be when that hot place freezes over.

This thread: