<?xml version="1.0"?><!-- generator="bbPress" -->

<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
>

<channel>
<title>The Behold User Forum Topic: GEDCOM 5.5EL</title>
<link>http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=123</link>
<description>The Behold User Forum Topic: GEDCOM 5.5EL</description>

		
	<copyright>Posts by Louis Kessler are Copyright 2000-2013 Louis Kessler, All Rights Reserved.  Posts by others belong to the people who made them.</copyright>

<language>en</language>

<item>
<title>Questions and Answers: GEDCOM 5.5EL</title>
<link>http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=123#post-370</link>
<pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2012 15:07:47 GMT</pubDate>
<dc:creator>lkessler</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">370@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;Brett:&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;I included support for GEDCOM 5.5EL in Version 1.0.1. The info in the _LOC records is merged into Behold's Place details. Behold already had support for the _WITN tag and Behold's method of handling the ASSO and TYPE tags will handle them. The Find Files window will also identify GEDCOM 5.5EL files.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;I talked about GEDCOM 5.5EL in &#60;a href=&#34;http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=899&#34;&#62;my &#34;The Place Record in GEDCOM&#34; post&#60;/a&#62;.
&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Tamura is more careful in his selection of terminology than most people. I most often agree with his judgements.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;I will be implementing &#34;perfect&#34; GEDCOM input parsing in Version 1.5, which will report on all problems, but will still allow almost anything. That exercise will be necessary to ensure that the GEDCOM output Behold will produce is 100% compliant.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Louis
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
<category>Questions and Answers</category>
</item>
<item>
<title>Questions and Answers: GEDCOM 5.5EL</title>
<link>http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/topic.php?id=123#post-369</link>
<pubDate>Sat, 03 Mar 2012 09:38:47 GMT</pubDate>
<dc:creator>brett</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink="false">369@http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/forum/</guid>
<description>&#60;p&#62;Louis&#60;br /&#62;
Wondering what Behold does with GEDCOM 5.5EL.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;See &#60;a href=&#34;http://www.tamurajones.net/DetectingGEDCOM5.5EL.xhtml&#34; rel=&#34;nofollow&#34;&#62;http://www.tamurajones.net/DetectingGEDCOM5.5EL.xhtml&#60;/a&#62;&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;Also, Tamura states:&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;The illegal VERS value invalidates the GEDCOM header and as a rule, GEDCOM readers should reject files that do not even contain a valid GEDCOM header. A forgiving GEDCOM reader that recognises the illegal value could issue a non-fatal error and continue.&#60;/p&#62;
&#60;p&#62;I would not classify Behold as a forgiving GEDCOM reader, rather one that 'can read and error report' on most (all?) GEDCOM files.
&#60;/p&#62;</description>
<category>Questions and Answers</category>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>


<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.795 seconds -->
