TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041433308


From: Terry Reigel <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] GEDCOM export missing county
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 10:02:04 -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> <5.2.0.9.2.20030101092523.017b1a90@mail.richard.cleaveland.name>


Richard Cleaveland wrote:

> 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 know your comment was meant a bit tongue in cheek, but when I think
about the idea of marking data which will not transfer, that seems to me
to be an all but impossible task. First, of course, you need to decide
whether you mean GEDCOM 4.0 or 5.5, or one of the three other versions,
because the results differ somewhat. After that, some cases are pretty
easy to identify, like the county field in Repositories which you
brought up. But others are not. Take you basic census tag -- when there
are two principals, it gets exported if they are married, but not if
they aren't. Do you really want TMG to take resources to check each tag
in detail every time it's edited in order to make such a mark? Even if
you did that, what would you want to do about information that TMG
exports to GEDCOM that few or no other programs will read? That seems to
me to be at least as big a hole as what doesn't get exported.

I agree that the whole GEDCOM issue is ugly, but I'm not convinced
there's much TMG can do about it that will gain very widespread support
among users.

Terry Reigel



This thread: