Hi Mike On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 09:18 +1000, Mike Hamilton wrote: > Tamura Jones has a useful and (recent) roundup of GEDCOM validators at > http://www.tamurajones.net/GEDCOMValidation.xhtml . If we have a hero who is > prepared to improve Paul Johnson's validate() function, he or she might take > the best ideas from those programs.
Thanx for the URL. I've read some interesting articles there. > I agree with the comments by Darren Duncan and Steve Woodbridge. To me, a > validator simply provides a report; the only "error" condition is if the file > cannot be parsed. All other outputs are simply warnings of varying severity. Yep. > The list of possible inconsistencies in a GEDCOM file must be endless, but in > my experience problems of the "brothers and sisters have I none, but that > man's father is my father's son" type are rare. My biggest gripe is GEDCOM's > free-form dates: for example, is 1/2/88 the first of February, or the second > of January, and is the year 1988, 1888, 1788 [...] ? Date::Manip is useful, > but cannot cope with that case (and many others). An option reporting > "ambiguous or unparsable date" would be extremely useful. Yep. But how many different versions of the GEDCOM spec is anybody expected to support? Let me guess: Just 1, the 1 the user is using! -- Ron Savage http://savage.net.au/ Ph: 0421 920 622
