TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2006-03 > 1141364095


From: Dean Scribner <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Omissions
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 21:34:55 -0800


Kay Schmidt asked:
>Am I correct in thinking using the exclusion sign (-) would result in
another place in the MPL?

Yes, Kay, you are correct. I've been through that myself. I find it
more satisfactory to modify the sentence structures at the local tag
level to avoid repetition in the Individual Narrative, substituting
<[LD]>, <[LCI]>, <[LCN]>, <[LS]>, etc. for <[L]>, using only the one(s)
I want to print in each instance.

Dean

-----Original Message-----
From: bob gillis [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:45 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [TMG] Omissions


Lynn Rudberg wrote:

>Perhaps my hopes are unrealistic but here goes: When I input data and
then
look at the individual narrative or journal reports, I often find I need
to
place the omission sign (-) at the county or state level element so that
the
narrative is not redundant and is more readable.
>

I understand why you do that and I do likewise .

> However, that means that the pedigree charts (and I suspect the box
charts
too) have incomplete data regarding places. Is there a way to work
around
this or must I deal with each narrative report by deleting the redundant
place elements in Word
>

But why do you want the full place in a pedigree or chart? Either
still shows the full place in the birth/baptism and only the Detail/City
in the other Tags.

bob gillis

This thread: