> > Here is what the official GEDCOM 5.5.1 spec says.
> >
> > DATE_GREG:= {Size=4:35}
> > [ <YEAR_GREG>[B.C.] | <MONTH> <YEAR_GREG> | <DAY> <MONTH> <YEAR_GREG> ]
> >
> > So just suffix the date with B.C.
> >
>
> If I'm reading that right, then the moment we go into BC, we can no
> longer record months or days in BC?
>That is what the spec says, and it makes sense that the dates and sources would be quite inaccurate by the time you get back that far. However if I had a B.C. Gregorian date with a month and year I would still suffix it with B.C. GEDCOM does support dates from alternate calendars such as Hebrew, French, Julian, etc. So if you had a date from a source that old it is likely to be in another calendar format anyway. In the Hebrew calendar for example, B.C. has no meaning as all dates start from Adam. > > ...FamilySearch has adopted a new XML standard quite different from GEDCOM > > which allows you to interface with their web > > service APIs. > > > > Perhaps we're getting somewhere after all then with Geneology and XML. > Where can I read more about this? > There is nothing publicly published yet about the APIs or the XML format. But the best person to talk to is Gordon Clarke. He has posted to this list before. > Some new questions for John Finlay or other phpGedView admin: > > * Does phpGedView sort BC dates properly? I haven't added one yet to test > it... > We have recently redone all of our date handling code to better support alternate calendars. This will be included in v4.1.2. I haven't personally tested B.C. dates as another developer is heading the new date code, but it should handle B.C. dates nicely. All dates are transcoded internally to a Julian day so that we can not only sort B.C. dates, but also sort intermingled dates from multiple calendars. > * Will pgv use the new xml standard? > PGV will import/export FamilySearch XML for the purpose of interfacing with the API, but our internal format will remain GEDCOM 5.x. We are working to abstract the display from GEDCOM, but it will likely be 2 or more years before we can support anything but GEDCOM in the internal format. Personally, I like GEDCOM as a data model and as a data format. It is smaller than XML, it is mature, and it is supported by many applications. People say that GEDCOM is messy, but it is the genealogy data model itself that is messy. Any XML standard will suffer from the same data model problems. What GEDCOM needs the most is leadership and a standards body to properly enforce it. There are only a few things I would say are missing from GEDCOM and they could be fixed with a few simple upgrades to the current 5.5 spec. Time to step off the soap box... :) --John P.S. The errors on your PGV site have to do with some errors in one of your user accounts. You might try editing and saving each user.
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
