TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-10 > 1065213591


From: "John Cardinal" <>
Subject: RE: [TMG] Total People Count
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:40:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.2.20031003160029.02802030@pop1.ns.sympatico.ca>


Dead Relatives wrote:
> At 12:32 PM 03-10-03, John Cardinal wrote:
> >John Cardinal wrote:
> >
> >SS doesn't produce a journal report, though the information content is quite
> >similar.
>
> I guess the next obvious question is "are there any plans for SS
> to produce web pages that look just like journal reports to dear old dad"?

Jim,

No, I am not planning to make SS mimic journal reports. Journal reports were
designed for the printed page and I don't think they are a particulary good
choice for web pages. As I mentioned already, the journal format doesn't handle
disjoint sets of people very well. In addition, a lot of material is repeated,
presumably because it's not easy to navigate quickly from one section of the
document to another. IMO, that's not the right way to display the information in
a web browser. I have some other ideas about how to leverage the capabilities of
web browsers and most of them will move the output further from the journal
format, not closer to it.

> My 13K person journal report is for publication and I looked at SS
> as a possible solution to my publishing problems (disk vice printed form)
> but none of the sample SS sites I looked at had anything that looked like
> what I want to see. I don't need an exact journal report match but it
> would be nice if it came close .... like the Register reports on the
> rootsweb.com worldconnect sites ...... well, better than that but you get
> my drift <g>.

SS is not a good vehicle for producing a report for publication.

> Having large TMG 4.0d generated Word files actually load into Word
> would be nice and having large TMG 4.0d generated WordPerfect files
> successfully generate indexes would, for me, be the better long range
> solution but I'm thinking neither Microsoft nor Corel is particularly
> interested in my silly needs/wants.
>
> I have yet to generate this same 13K person journal Word file
> successfully in TMG 5.09 (only tried one time and called it quits after
> about five hours when only 36% of the "calculating text for 12610 people"
> process was complete) but I expect the results, as far as Word being able
> to process the file, will be similar to those seen with the TMG 4.0d
> generated files: Word and WordPerfect simply do not appear to like large
> files with lots of endnotes.
>
> Has anybody managed to come up with a SWAG on what file size
> usually triggers this failure? I have several families with journal
> reports of 6-7K individuals and experience no problems thus far.

I can't help you much with this. Hopefully, other TMGers who have produced books
using TMG will chime in. If the goal of publication is to share the fruits of
your research with your relatives and other interested researchers, perhaps you
should consider publishing via a CD. I do not want to sway you from your
original goal, unless of course you want to be swayed! <g>

John

This thread: