ken gompertz wrote: > Subject: Re: GEDCOM as a database format > > FLAPDOODLE! > > Recent contributions on this SIG contain confusing, often argumentative, > rhetoric about genealogy > and GEDCOMs ... > > Please, gurus all: it would really help > > IF you would use English without descent into jargon (which has as many > dialects as there are discussants), replacing gobbledygook with plainspeak; > OK, the serious comment. A working library of XML books will occupy at minimum 6" of shelf space and probably a great deal more. It will define and use a great deal of technical vocabulary - or jargon if you prefer. The alternative would be to explain everything at tedious length. But that jargon has only one "dialect" as you put it, not many (unless you include the book on XML Schema which gratingly insists on treating "schema" as a plural form). Likewise genealogy has its own specialist vocabulary. Again it would be tedious to explain every term at length. (If you are not persuaded of this maybe you should remember that there are many terms in everyday life which were once specialist technical terms. These include the components of a car. You might find it enlightening to try the exercise of writing out instructions on how to drive a car round the block without using such technical terms as "starter", "steering wheel" and "clutch".) This newsgroup deals with genealogy and computing. In that case it seems to me that use of the technical terms of both disciplines is not only perfectly proper but essential. I certainly didn't find the discussion you quoted to be gobbledygook. -- Ian Hotmail is for spammers. Real mail address is igoddard at nildram co uk