> > > I'm interested in what people do on this one. > > > > > > Suppose you output a report from your favourite genealogical program > > > in say DOC or RTF format because you want to put it through some > > > manual editing in a word processing program. > > > > > > What is it you want to do? Is it to tweak the content (sounds a bit > > > dubious - why wasn't it right in the first place)? Or perhaps you > > > want to massage the appearance in some way. > > > > > > Peter J Seymour <mozng@pjsey.demon.co.uk> > > > > If I understand your question correctly, I'd think much would depend > > on the output of your report generator. I have one, for example, > > which will output date and place of death, even for living persons, > > when the "show all events" option is selected. Now, even though the > > output for living persons is something like "He died on _____ at > > ____", the fact it appears at all is annoying and more than a bit > > off-putting (took me a while to connect the output with selecting > > that particular option, BTW). That's point one. 'Nother thought is > > that you might want to rearrange the way the facts are presented, or > > combine notes or modify any of a number of cosmetic things that your > > report generator does well (good enough for government work) but not > > as you might wish. Font, layout, pagination, indexing, title page, > > table of contents, addition of graphics - there's a whole slew of > > things you might want to "play" with to get the report to look the > > way you want it. > > > > But the primary reason you might want to run the report through your > > wordprocessor might be to convert it from, say, .doc or .rtf to, > > say, .pdf or .ps. To my mind, anything that's MicroSoft or Apple > > specific is immediately suspect and automatically goes to the bottom > > of the pile for later conversion. (Notwithstanding that some 95% or > > more of personal computers run some version of Windows or MacOS, > > there are some who choose to run neither and may not be able to do > > anything with those proprietary formats. As a result, you've wasted > > your time and machine cycles preparing a report they'll likely never > > read and have probably annoyed them more than just a little bit.) > > > > Swell Ol' Bob Melson > > So I guess that if the program will output in PDF format that will > deal with your primary reason. It doesn't help with your minor > adjustments though. It looks like the program ought to allow editing > of the report before writing it to the file, but full-blown word > processing within the program would be getting a bit tricky. I think > I would be in favour of pushing back whatever those adjustments are > to being report generation options so that the generated report is > already as you want it (or pretty close). This would require a whole > raft of detail options but that is probably manageable. > > Peter J Seymour <mozng@pjsey.demon.co.uk> I suspect that adding a bunch of formatting options to the report generator wouldn't be justifiable - I don't _know_ that, but think it likely. The report generator included with Gramps is really pretty good and does allow a fair amount of formatting, as well as a selection of output options (pdf, text, open document, etc.). Its limitations, and those of most genealogy software, are more a matter of what it has to work with than anything else: there are only so many ways you can say that Joe Doakes was born in Podunk Junction on such-and-such a date, married Edna Uglyperson and produced so many kids. These are the facts that're recorded in the gedcom and, except for the more or less free form notes, are pretty much plain vanilla. Since most of the world can produce but not directly edit pdf or ps files, it makes sense that if you wanted to edit your report generator's output, you'd want that output to be in something that permitted editing - text, or doc or rtf - and only after editing convert the output to pdf or postscript, if you converted at all. The reasons you might want to edit the report generator's output are probably as many as there are people producing reports. I named a few previously but would certainly not claim that the list is complete - formatting, pagination, inclusion of graphics, addition of indexes and tables of contents, font selection, etc. Swell Ol' Bob -- Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas ----- A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Thomas Jefferson Bob Melson <amia9018@mypacks.net>

> > > > I'm interested in what people do on this one. > > > > > > > > Suppose you output a report from your favourite genealogical program > > > > in say DOC or RTF format because you want to put it through some > > > > manual editing in a word processing program. > > > > > > > > What is it you want to do? Is it to tweak the content (sounds a bit > > > > dubious - why wasn't it right in the first place)? Or perhaps you > > > > want to massage the appearance in some way. > > > > > > > > Peter J Seymour <mozng@pjsey.demon.co.uk> > > > > > > If I understand your question correctly, I'd think much would depend > > > on the output of your report generator. I have one, for example, > > > which will output date and place of death, even for living persons, > > > when the "show all events" option is selected. Now, even though the > > > output for living persons is something like "He died on _____ at > > > ____", the fact it appears at all is annoying and more than a bit > > > off-putting (took me a while to connect the output with selecting > > > that particular option, BTW). That's point one. 'Nother thought is > > > that you might want to rearrange the way the facts are presented, or > > > combine notes or modify any of a number of cosmetic things that your > > > report generator does well (good enough for government work) but not > > > as you might wish. Font, layout, pagination, indexing, title page, > > > table of contents, addition of graphics - there's a whole slew of > > > things you might want to "play" with to get the report to look the > > > way you want it. > > > > > > But the primary reason you might want to run the report through your > > > wordprocessor might be to convert it from, say, .doc or .rtf to, > > > say, .pdf or .ps. To my mind, anything that's MicroSoft or Apple > > > specific is immediately suspect and automatically goes to the bottom > > > of the pile for later conversion. (Notwithstanding that some 95% or > > > more of personal computers run some version of Windows or MacOS, > > > there are some who choose to run neither and may not be able to do > > > anything with those proprietary formats. As a result, you've wasted > > > your time and machine cycles preparing a report they'll likely never > > > read and have probably annoyed them more than just a little bit.) > > > > > > Swell Ol' Bob Melson > > > > So I guess that if the program will output in PDF format that will > > deal with your primary reason. It doesn't help with your minor > > adjustments though. It looks like the program ought to allow editing > > of the report before writing it to the file, but full-blown word > > processing within the program would be getting a bit tricky. I think > > I would be in favour of pushing back whatever those adjustments are > > to being report generation options so that the generated report is > > already as you want it (or pretty close). This would require a whole > > raft of detail options but that is probably manageable. > > > > Peter J Seymour <mozng@pjsey.demon.co.uk> > > I suspect that adding a bunch of formatting options to the report > generator wouldn't be justifiable - I don't _know_ that, but think > it likely. > > Bob Melson A year or so back, someone (here?) posted an objection to the way her software phrased "died 14 Oct 1998" -- she felt "died" was too bald. So I frittered away some of my "copious spare time" ;) reading the death notices and obits in my local newspaper. It quickly became obvious why the genie programs all use "died" -- it's the least objectional alternative. If you're Hindu or Jewish, do you want your report to say that your father was Called Home To Jesus on 14 Oct 1998? If your mother was a Ph.D. in Biochemistry, do you want the report to claim she Graduated on 14 Oct 1998? If your uncle was agnostic or atheist, you won't want to say he Entered Eternal Glory on 14 Oct 1998. And if your other uncle was executed by the State for mass murder ... ? Nope. Died. One word fits all situations. Then, the issue of fonts, faces, sizes, graphics and cutlines. In a wordprocessor (whether it's PCWrite or WordPerfect of OO or whatever) you can go through and flag the DSP entries, or who died of Cancer or who was in Korea. Putting that level of options into the text-producing software built-into the genie program would inflate the genie program to swallow Jupiter (c Paramount Pictures) and slow it down like nobody's business. Then again, maybe it's the latent Wm Shakespeare in all of us that simply wants some level of creative input. (g) Cheryl singhals <singhals@erols.com>

singhals wrote: > Nope. Died. One word fits all situations. My great-grandfather "went to the great beyond." That seems pretty non-sectarian to me. :) Kathy Kathy <lenerz@worldnet.att.net>