Don Nickell wrote: > > Singhals wrote: > > > > Richard A. Pence wrote: > > > > > > "Singhals" <singhals@erols.com> wrote in message > > > news:3C42E6FC.723752EB@erols.com... > > > > Actually, no, it isn't. GEDCOM was proposed for that reason, but > > > > for reasons of economic clout, the development was largely at the > > > > instance of the LDS church *because* it was an easy way for LDS > > > > members to get the necessary parts of their data (name, date, > > > > place) out of the genealogy program and into the Temple system. > > > > And, for that to work properly, the format of the places has to > > > > go small to large (otherwise the IGI shows Chev* instead of > > > > Maryl). Non-LDS genealogists began using it to move data from > > > > this program to that, with the results we've discussed here > > > > before -- to wit, strange things happen to normal people. > > > > > > In the interest of historical accuracy, what we now know as GEDCOM was > > > developed by the LDS church as an internal tool to assist in transferring > > > data from personal computers to its main frame computer. Later, the > > > specification were made public so other developers could incorporate them as > > > a method of transferring data. In the beginning, the GEDCOM utilities were > > > "approved" by LDS, but this approval did not mean that the program > > > accurately implemented the specification, merely that the output of a > > > program's GEDCOM utility was approved as a vehicle for submitting data to > > > the LDS's Ancestral File. > > > > > > As for the entering of place names, I have noted that (at least in the old > > > days when manuals were printed! <G>), each program gave considerable detail > > > on how these should be entered. Anyone who followed directions shouldn't > > > have had any trouble and, by golly, I think if you wanted "USA" understood, > > > you could allow for that in your data entry without worrying about what > > > happened when you exported information. (And, even if there isn't such a > > > provision in every program, there are workarounds to get there.) > > > > > > Regards, > > > Richard > > > > Somehow, I thought that's what I said, but Richard's proven me > > wrong before, so ... > > > > Thank you for the clarification. (G) > > > > [And just to muddy waters (remember him?) a little more -- in PAF > > 2.x there was a keystroke that allowed you to see a summary of > > the individual, name of spouse, names of parents *AND* the first > > 6 lines of the NOTES. In PAF 3 and up, that's not available (or > > if it is, no one knows where to find it). So, on several of my > > more difficult to trace families, I have inserted "/Kerns" or > > "/SeaHunt" for the placenames. This avoids my having to make so > > many clicks and obscure the part I'm checking to open the NOTES > > to check it. It makes a lot more work for me when I printout to > > share, because I have to edit that, but it makes MY working life > > easier. Point, such as it is, being, what you do in your working > > files is no one's business but yours UNTIL you start publishing > > to the web or to paper, or even in a GED when the prevailing > > standard should be identified and met.] > > > > Cheryl > > I'm certain you are more famliar with PAF than I am. I just started > using PAF 4 for a new project and found d-clicking on a person did > basically the same thing as L-click or 2 on the Principle Person did > in PAF 2.31. With PAF 4 it doesn't show notes, as in 2.31, but there's > a Notes button along with 3 others. True, Don, but it's those first 6 lines of the notes where I put a lot of my documentation shorthand. (g) I NEED to see those while I can *also* see the individual summary. Apparently SLC thought my memory is alot better than it is. (g) Cheryl