TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-01 > 1041464520


From: Lee Hoffman <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] General tags or VERY specific tags?
Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2003 18:42:00 -0500
References: <5.2.0.9.2.20030101150136.027478b8@pop3.norton.antivirus>
In-Reply-To: <001b01c2b1d8$9d632d10$6eb52244@khnlic0umhcfd>


Linda Gaylord-Kuhn wrote:
>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>

You can still use it. The difference is that you would put it in the
Sentence by modifying the Date Variable. Normally the Dat Variable is
<[D]> and it would be changed to <by [D]> (capitalizing the 'b' if the
variable is the first of the sentence.

>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.

Yes, what another program (or even the same program) does with GEDCOM data
on import is often not necessarily desired. Usually this is because that
type of data is not expected in the program (or not in that form). Most
programs today usually provide some means of user choice as to where some
unexpected data is placed. But that does not (and really cannot) always
cover every case. So there will always be some clean up (at best). At
least the data is retained in the program and not either placed on an error
list or just ignored.


Lee Hoffman/KY
TMG Tips: <http://www.tmgtips.com>;
My website: <http://www.tmgtips.com/lhoffman>;
A user of the best genealogy program, The Master Genealogist (TMG)

This thread: