TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041438143


From: Terry Reigel <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] GEDCOM export missing county
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 11:22:39 -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> <5.2.0.9.2.20030101103209.01317ca0@mail.richard.cleaveland.name>


Richard Cleaveland wrote:

>> 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.
>
>
> That's an issue to be taken up with the managers of those other
> programs.


I don't know that I agree. While some issues, like the case with Legacy
you cite, can be readily fixed if the programmer is responsive, I
suspect most are the result of fundamental system design and less
susceptible to easy solution. But in any case, it really doesn't matter
to the TMG user whether the problem is in exporting to GEDCOM or
importing to another program -- the result is the same. The data they
entered is not received by those to whom it's being sent.

> Yes, I know Bob has made great efforts in the past to have the
> "standard" improved, and the UFT people even went overboard to try to
> leverage some improvements, all to no avail. My suggestion was made
> in the spirit of trying to make the best of a bad situation. As far as
> the gaining of widespread support among TMG users I suspect you are
> right. Based on what I see on this list and observe at RUG meetings
> and in off-list communications, the majority of TMG users have little
> appreciation of the myriad of features it offers.


That may be true, and I would only add that many that do appreciate
TMG's features see little value in exporting to GEDCOM. There are, of
course, a number of well spoken exceptions. <g>

Terry



This thread: