D. Stussy wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Singhals wrote: > >D. Stussy wrote: > >> You might not share your database, but if we are talking about the >GEDCOM > > > >I wasn't; nor was the thread. The key word in my sentence > >(deleted here) was _standard_. > > Correct, but there would be no need for any standard if there is no information > interchange. Your position makes no sense - if you are not going to ever share > your database, then it doesn't matter what its content says or how it's > formatted, so what good is seeking a standard? > > Standards are created for interchange or interoperatbility, which for data > formats, implies by DEFINITION, an exchange (or at minimum, the ability to do > so). Why are you seeking a standard if you won't be doing this? > The fact that I don't *use* a standard doesn't mean I can't appreciate one. I frankly don't use the standards for determining whether a nuclear power plant is clean -- but I do appreciate that there needs to BE a standard for that. And I believe you're either misunderstanding or misstating my position vis-a-vis database sharing. It is not the content that I hoard; it is the database itself. The content is available to any family member who wants to ask for it; the form/format/raw data/database is not. They may have printout from it but NOT a GED. And in printout, it looks better if all places are entered in the same way -- town, county, state, (country if not residence of preparer)-- rather than higgly-piggly with a birthplace showing state and county, a marriage showing town and county, a death showing cemetery, town, state. Darn few people actually die in a cemetery, so the name of the cemetery is misplaced, however valuable the info may be. Cheryl