Ira and All I agree with Ira, I have tried many Genealogy programs and found that Cumberland Family Tree is the best one for me, I don't think that GEDCOM should cause limitations otherwise every program would be the same. Ian Marson ian@marson.force9.co.uk http://www.marson.force9.co.uk/home.html -----Original Message----- From: Ira J. Lund <ira.lund@cf-software.com> To: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com <CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 02 January 1998 15:45 Subject: Re: RESIdence tag >>>Except, that I believe I have a conflict with the GEDCOM standard here. In >>>the GEDCOM standard I believe that a RESI tag requires ADDR fields (and >>>maybe CITY, STATE, ZIP - an address structure), rather than a PLACE field >>>which my program will generate. >> >>I can not see any problem or conflict here. >>The RESI tag does -NOT- require an ADDR field. >> >>The Gedcom 5.5 standard only ask that the RESI tag >>is followed by an <Event_Detail>. >>An <Event_Detail> can include a >><Place_Structure> as well as an <Address_Structure>. >> >>The only problem is the one I formerly mentioned: >>The RESI tag is only described as an Individual structure >>-NOT- as a Family Structure, which to me is a natural choice. > >Okay, perhaps you are right. Actually, the way I look at GEDCOM is that it >is a transfer media and should not constrict my program. If I program >something that GEDCOM can't handle then I feel that's GEDCOM's problem and >that I should not limit my program to meet only items that can be >transfered via GEDCOM. So I don't actually place that much importance on >GEDCOM. I program CFT-Win the way I feel it should be - then (after the >fact) try to fit it to GEDCOM for transfering of data. This is the case of >a RESI or ADDR tag allowing for individual AND family events. > >Ira > >---------------------------------------------------------- > Ira J. Lund > Cumberland Family Software, Clarksville, Tennessee, USA > E-mail: ira.lund@cf-software.com > http://www.cf-software.com >