>>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