On 24 Apr at 21:13, Sue Adams <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24/04/2012 15:38, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: > > The crux of the matter is the software > > developers who write faulty programs to export and import GEDCOM > > Absolutely! The issue is poor quality software from all the current > developers. > > Compliance with the standard, be it GEDCOM or GEDCOMX, is vital. I > believe there are some GEDCOM validators written by third parties, but > there is not one that has gained acceptance as a benchmark. The > development of the new GEDCOMX standard offers the opportunity to > produce a validator as the same time. Going back to my web HTML > example in my previous message, you can check if a web page complies > with the HTML standard (http://validator.w3.org/). A similar tool for > GEDCOMX is needed as a priority so that developers, users and > reviewers can check for compliance with the standard. Once we can > easily check, we can hold software developers to account. > > So, my plea is that you tell Familysearch what you think. They are > asking for collaboration and feedback. > > Here is some links to get you started: > http://www.gedcomx.org/Home.html > http://familysearch.github.com/gedcomx/feedback/2012-03-23.htm > <http://familysearch.github.com/gedcomx/feedback/2012-03-23.html> Thanks for that. I have filled in the feedback form with some proposals. (It took a couple of hours to get a bit of a hang of the site!) -- Tim Powys-Lybbe [email protected] for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/