TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041454737


From: Linda Gaylord-Kuhn <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] General tags or VERY specific tags?
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 14:58:57 -0600
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.2.20030101150136.027478b8@pop3.norton.antivirus>


Lee,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Hoffman [mailto:]
<snip>
> that it is strongly recommended
> that data not be entered directly in the Tag Sentence regardless of
how
> often the tag is used. The reason is that no other program uses the
> Sentence feature (at least not exactly like TMG) and more importantly,
the
> Sentences are not exportable to other programs.

^ ^ ^
| | |
Amen!! Anyone listening should take heed to what you just said. I
know. Been there, done that!! I'm still finding and fixing things like
that that I did during my early years with UFT.

<snip>

> For example, you may want the narrative to read "By 1880, he
> resided ..." and the word "By" could be prepended to the Sentence
without
> any loss of data should transfer of data be required.

I'm going to miss not being able to use the "by" modifier for "regular"
dates in TMG. I used it a _lot_ in the UFT date fields. Yeah, I know,
I can still use it as an "irregular" date. Not a point worth crying
over. <G>

> As for point (d), I do not know of any of my custom tags that do not
> transfer via GEDCOM. When I create a custom Tag, I include in that
> definition (on the Other tab) whether TMG should use the GEDCOM Label
> (that
> I enter) or if the that should be exported using the GEDCOM EVEN tag
> structure. In most cases, I use the latter.

Lee, I recall that happening to me exporting to older versions of FTM
(as I recall), which threw all the stuff in the Notes/Comments area in
one big lump where they were all but unintelligible. Maybe the newer
FTM versions are better at it. I can't tell you specifically, though,
which tags they were. In fact, my bad experiences may even predate
GEDCOM 5.5 for that matter.

Linda



This thread: