TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2003-05 > 1053553374


From: Terry Reigel <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Source Export from TMG
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 17:42:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <1a9.14ffbe94.2bfd3e8c@aol.com>


On Wed, 21 May 2003 16:41:48 EDT, wrote:
>Well, the experts seem pretty sure that as a newcomer I'm
>wrong to question TMG.

No, we're just trying to help you get what you want.

>It may well be that pocket PC is superior, but it is also
>more expensive here in the UK. I happen to have a Palm and
>use software GEDSTAR to convert the TMG file without going
>via GEDCOM.

I don't know a thing about either, so don't have an opinion.

>My point is that this conversion for Palm (of selected
>fields only) can only happen if the source date or file
>number required, is consistently in the same field across
>all source types, and if that field is a default field in
>a default source type.

Then make the desired source element a default source element for all
the source types you want to have it. I was just trying to explain
why the default templates shipped with TMG don't have them -- because
Mills' and Lackey's examples don't call for them.

>That is why I did not add a
>(custom) file-number field to the civil marriage source
>record type. Similarly the TAG on the Text field seems to
>indicate to the user that it is for comments. And
>therefore is not a field that merits selecting for export
>to Palm.

If it's the field where you put the data, how is it going to get in
the Palm if you tell it to exclude it? If you don't like the
"Comments" label, change it to something you prefer. There is also a
Notes source element, that uses the same field, or you can create
your own custom source element in the Comments group. But it won't
change the output to GEDCOM, because as Jim and I both said, it
exports with a GEDCOM tag type of Note.

Terry Reigel





This thread: