Prev
GEDCOM 5.5EL - Categorized in: 
Questions and Answers
2 posts.
Started 2 Mar 2012 by brett. Latest reply 3 Mar 2012 by lkessler.
RSS
GEDCOM 5.5EL - Categorized in:
2 posts. Started 2 Mar 2012 by brett. Latest reply 3 Mar 2012 by lkessler. RSS
Leave your Reply
You must login to post your reply.
Joined: Mon, 12 Jan 2009
35 blog comments, 52 forum posts
Posted: Fri, 2 Mar 2012
Louis
Wondering what Behold does with GEDCOM 5.5EL.
See http://www.tamurajones.net/DetectingGEDCOM5.5EL.xhtml
Also, Tamura states:
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.
I would not classify Behold as a forgiving GEDCOM reader, rather one that 'can read and error report' on most (all?) GEDCOM files.
Joined: Sun, 9 Mar 2003
119 blog comments, 176 forum posts
Posted: Sat, 3 Mar 2012
Brett:
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.
I talked about GEDCOM 5.5EL in my "The Place Record in GEDCOM" post.
Tamura is more careful in his selection of terminology than most people. I most often agree with his judgements.
I will be implementing "perfect" 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.
Louis