"singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote in message news:mailman.7.1362081502.4183.gencmp@rootsweb.com... > Tony Proctor wrote: >> >> "Tim Powys-Lybbe"<tim@powys.org> wrote in message >> news:mpro.mivsln1d7akow0095.tim@powys.org... >>> On 27 Feb at 11:50, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz >>> <spamtrap@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> I've seen a lot of references to really old versions of GEDCOM. GEDCOM >>>> 5.5.1 seems to satisfy my immediate needs[1], but has been in draft >>>> status for a very long time. GEDCOM 6 is still a work in progress and >>>> I'm not sure where GEDCOM-X is. What is the prognosis for the major >>>> players to support at least GEDCOM 5.5.1 in UTF-8? >>>> >>>> [1] E.g., storing both a secular and a religous name, storing a >>>> romanized transliteration of a name in a non-roman script, >>>> storing a date in two different calendars. >>> >>> My opinion is a zilch prognosis. The problem with GEDCOM is that it >>> makes it relatively easy to transfer a lot of the data between genealogy >>> programs. But for the programmer this is not Good News; how much better >>> to lock the user into their program by making GEDCOM transfers more >>> difficult? >>> >>> Yo might get more mileage by asking your current program owners when >>> _They_ are going to provide the above features. >>> >>> -- >>> Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org >>> for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ >> >> Programmers would not benefit by locking people into a genealogical >> product >> Tim. I'm sure you appreciate that genealogy relies on data sharing. Even >> if >> someone doesn't want to benefit from someone else's research, they will >> certainly want to pass on their own research to friends and family. >> >> If sharing is a fundamental tenet of genealogy then some mechanism to >> exchange data accurately and in a vendor-neutral fashion is essential. >> >> GEDCOM became a de facto standard but it was never envisioned as that >> originally. It now shows the fallacy of having a proprietary model which >> was >> loosely-defined and has now been abandoned by its creator. Ideally, we >> should have a community-defined model with a freely-available, >> high-quality >> standard. >> >> This is what FHISO (http://fhiso.org) are all about. I have raised this >> topic before in this group. Irrespective of the negativity and >> cup-half-full >> mentality of some other folks in this group, such a standard will evolve. >> If >> you want a say in its requirements, you really need to become a member. >> >> Tony Proctor >> FHISO Organising Member > > Well, y'see, many of us half-a-cup types suffered through the years long > process that ended up as GED5.5 It was intended to be a universal > standard. But, turns out, FO users wanted FO to set the standard, FTM > users wanted FTM's standards, UFT users wanted ... PAF users wanted ... > ROOTS users wanted ... TFE users wanted ... > > Bottom line: universal standards can be promulgated, even agreed to, from > here to Planet Rigel, but unless some entity somewhere has the muscle to > impose compliance, there will be no universal compliance. See also: GED > STAN 5.5 > > Cheryl I agree the industry doesn't have a good track record so far Cheryl but that time for change is now. There are many international standards in existence, although none for genealogy. All of the associated standards developments that I am aware of, or was even involved with, had a difficult and chequered history. I guess it's the nature of the beast - standardisation always comes as a solution to fragmented field that had been largely driven by commercial and self interests. It was a monumental task to get enough traction that vendors and organisations actually volunteer to become supporting members, but FHISO has finally got there. The technical developments will soon follow from having them around the same table. It will not be easy - such things never are - but this has to happen. The benefits outweigh the effort. Tony Proctor Why not let FHISO top-up your glass Cheryl? ;-)