When I've had to manually massage a GED to make it import into one of my programs, I've found that when I change every off-beat (read: non-vanilla) tag to NOTE and dump everthing into NOTES, it works better than most other things. If I can do it by hand using search/replace, it ought to be a trivial programming task.
I do agree, though, that if everyone used MY program of preference I wouldn't have to do this, but some folks /do/ think they know better'n me. ;) Cheryl Jay 1FamilyTree wrote: > > Look at the big picture. > > How can Legacy create a 'work-around' if whatever other > software doesnt support it when its imported into their > software. > > The same goes for a 'workaround' for some Rootsweb or > Heridis feature, that Legacy would automatically support > their workaround whenever their gedcom created output is to > be imported into Legacy? > > You cannot blame Legacy for having a feature that the > "industry" doesnt have an agreed upon way to manage that all > software vendors will follow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Ward Walker > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Jay, > I think it will be a long time before we have a new > interchange standard that deals with these two features. > To my thinking, whenever a software vendor implements a > proprietary new feature for data entry (and internal > data structure), they should implement a workaround for > the export of the resulting data. From day one. Why > would I want to send to my distant cousins a GEDCOM for > which I have to apologize due to its garbled sources or > missing events? > The Legacy import process already has a few workarounds > to accommodate non-standard quirks in GEDCOMs generated > by other products. Why not workarounds for the two > export issues? They both sound achievable at a > reasonable cost. > I’ve already gone down the SourceWriter road, but I can > easily avoid shared events until this happens. They are > a nifty feature that is only half implemented. > Ward > *From:* Jay 1FamilyTree <mailto:[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:23 PM > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: Exporting Shared Events [WAS: Re: > [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events] > Ward > When the standards for Gedcom were created way back > when, this 'new feature' wasn't even considered or even > imagined. > Don't blame the software for it, blame the standards > that haven't been updated. > Whatever browser you are using to read this email and > view the web certainly isnt following the standards of > the HTML 3.0 which was the first widely used and > accepted standards for that category of electronic data. > As Kristy said, the issue is wit the gedcom. > Jay > > > On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:44 AM, Ward Walker > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I agree, Gavin. To me, this is equivalent to the > problem with SourceWriter source citations. I have > long advocated that Legacy reformat these into > readable detail citations during the process of > converting them into Basic sources for the GEDCOM > export. It seems that Millennia does not believe > that a usable GEDCOM export is important. > Every proprietary new feature should have an option > to be mashed into the primitive GEDCOM standard > without loss of data. > Ward > *From:* Gavin Nicholson <mailto:[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 8:56 PM > *To:* [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events > > Thanks Kirsty,____ > > ____ > > Well I will be putting a change proposal in because > it would be simple to export a copy of the events to > each person. Yes it won't be shared anymore but that > is far preferable to not existing at all. > Essentially, with this as it is you can't use shared > events and then give your data to anyone who doesnt > use Legacy :-(____ > > ____ > > Thanks for making us aware of this one.____ > > Gavin...____ > > ____ > > *From:*Kirsty M. Haining > [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > *Sent:* Thursday, 5 December 2013 11:48 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [LegacyUG] Shared vital Events____ > > ____ > > Gavin, that is /exactly/ what I’m saying. Using a > gedcom export, the data shows up ONLY under the > event initiator’s dataset. ____ > > ____ > > Keep in mind, however, that if you use /Legacy/ to > create your reports, charts, sharing via PDF files, > etc. then the shared events should appear properly > within the particular reports (according the report > options you’ve chosen). The issue is with /gedcom/ > export.*____ > > ____ > > cheers,____ > > Kirsty____ > > J____ > > ____ > > *Or, technically, the issue arises anytime you’re > using another software program to handle a Legacy > file, be it gedcom or native FDB format.____ 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
