Forgot to say I checked with both Basic and SourceWriter entries and found the detail for both.
Pat On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Pat Hickin <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron, > > You wrote, "When exporting by GEDCOM I pretty well always use GEDCOM 5.5 > only and utf8 > coding." > > I'm using utf8 and this time I tried GEDCOM5.5, opened it in a text > editor, searched for the same detail -- and lo and behold it was there!! > > So thanks for solving my problem!!! > > Pat > > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Ron Ferguson > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Pat, >> >> The Basic Source format includes, pretty much the same details as the SW >> Format, but does not meet the requirements of Elizabeth Shown Mills. You >> can >> choose how, and where, you put something in. In common with SW it has both >> Master Source and Detailed Source, but does comply with the GEDCOM >> standard. >> >> When exporting by GEDCOM I pretty well always use GEDCOM 5.5 only and utf8 >> coding (this prevents potential problems with the receiving program). >> >> You can actually look at what is being exported in a GEDCOM by opening in >> a >> text program eg. Notepad or Notepad++. Doing so will remove doubts about >> Legacy not importing the sources correctly. >> >> Ron Ferguson >> http://www.fergys.co.uk/ >> >> >> From: Pat Hickin >> Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 3:06 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] does gedcom drop source details??? >> >> Brian wrote: >> >> "what makes you think there are no source details in your exported gedcom? >> In other words, exactly what or how are you trying to view this data? " >> >> Brian, I opened it back up in Legacy, clicked on an individual's book >> icon, >> which of course brought up a list of sources and ALL the detail fields >> were >> blank. >> >> I also tried copying one of the sources via the clipboard icon as though I >> were going to re-use it. Then I clipped on the ---- icon (to insert the >> same source) and the detail field was empty. >> >> Ron, you asked why I selected the generic GEDCOM. I did so because I am >> planning to export the gedcom to WikiTree. I have not tried the Basic >> format. I thought I read (probably in Legacy Help) that it gave only >> basic >> dates & places? >> >> Pat >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Ron Ferguson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Pat, >> >> I do not understand why you selected to use the generic GEDCOM, if >> exporting >> from Legacy to Legacy then the Legacy GEDCOM should have been selected. >> The >> point is that because SW is non-standard for GEDCOM purposes custom tags >> have to be used. Work which I did a few years back indicated that the >> Legacy >> GEDCOM did allow for the import/export of Legacy generated GEDCOMS. >> However >> an independent report (Seaver, I think) suggested that this was not the >> case. >> >> I am surprised that you say that the Basic format does not work, I would >> have expected that it would for all version, but then I do not know your >> construct. >> >> The behaviour you report is, btw., common to all programs which use SW >> style >> sourcing, because, and I repeat, it is due to the prehistoric nature of >> the >> GEDCOM standard. It has been reported on this list before, certainly by >> myself, and maybe others, although I cannot remember Legacy ever >> commenting. >> >> Personally, other than for testing, I would never use a GEDCOM to transfer >> to and from Legacy but the direct Legacy transfer option, which does work >> properly. >> >> >> Ron Ferguson >> http://www.fergys.co.uk/ >> GOONS #5307 >> >> >> >> "Brian L. Lightfoot" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >Without wading all the way back through this thread, I have to now ask >> this >> >question…what makes you think there are no source details in your >> exported >> >gedcom? In other words, exactly what or how are you trying to view this >> >data? You had one message that said “in checking your gedcom…†so >> just what >> >does “checking†mean, that is, how are you viewing the data? >> > >> > >> > >> >The details may be there but something or somehow they are not being >> >displayed depending upon your method of displaying it. Have you tried >> >sending a sample .GED to someone else to have them confirm that your >> source >> >details are indeed off to never-never land? >> > >> > >> > >> >Brian in CA >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >From: Pat Hickin [mailto:[email protected]] >> >Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:16 PM >> >> >To: [email protected] >> >Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] does gedcom drop source details??? >> > >> > >> > >> >Brian,Thanks for your reply. I tried that but still no source details! >> > >> > >> > >> >Ron, to respond to some of your points: >> > >> > >> > >> >You wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >1) "By generic, do you mean a generic GEDCOM as selected from the >> drop-down >> >list." >> > >> >Ans.: YES! >> > >> > >> > >> >2) "Ah!!! I just realised that you are probably using Source Writer " >> >> > >> >Ans.: Now I usually use source writer but MANY of my entries are in the >> >basic,original syste.-- I don't know what it's called. Doesn't matter-- >> I >> >don't have ANY source details. >> > >> > >> > >> >3) "Even if the GEDCOM contains the Source Details the chances of them >> >being imported into another program are just about zero." >> > >> >Ans.: I am exporting from Legacy & into Legacy. (I chose the generic >> style >> >because I want to upload eventually into WikiTree. >> > >> > >> > >> >I don't EVER remember anybody discussing this before -- if the source >> >details are dropped then one has to become an extreme splitter or else >> the >> >sourcing info will be extremely vague. I have zillions of entries under >> >Findagrave, for example, with only the Detail info to distinguish one >> entry >> >from another. >> > >> > >> > >> >Also, it seems to me we should be warned if Legacy introduces something >> new >> >that means it will no longer "travel" via .gedcom, but that may be asking >> >too much. The more I work with Legacy, the more I realize how >> complicated >> >it all is!! >> > >> > >> > >> >Pat >> >> >> >> >> >> Legacy User Group guidelines: >> http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp >> Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp >> Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and >> on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). >> To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp >> >> >> > > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and > on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
