On Tue, 2008-01-01 at 09:10 -0500, Douglas S. Blank wrote:
> On Tue, January 1, 2008 8:58 am, Brian Matherly wrote:
> >> I think that the consistency I'd like to see is that
> >> all reports have a
> >> method for picking and defining a format for their
> >> name display. That way,
> >> the report writer needn't choose, and the user can
> >> decide what is best.
> > The report author should not choose. The author should
> > use the format that the user has set in their
> > preferences. The user can configure any name format
> > they want in the preferences (which can include the
> > call name) and the reports should use that format. I
> > don't see why there would be any need for every report
> > to have an option for name format when the user has
> > already configured that in the Gramps preferences.
> > Am I missing something?
> Yes, I think so :) Some reports require a different name format than the
> main preference. For example, the calendar has very little space and
> output is generally for a more familiar audience than more formal output.
> It is a pain to have to change the preference, run the report, and then
> change it back. It can default to the preferences, and is saved, so it is
> really a useful option that users use.
> Secondly, some people would like to have different formatting for
> different names within a report. So, birth names might have one format,
> and married names another (see
> http://bugs.gramps-project.org/view.php?id=616 for example). I'm not sure
> about implementing that particular request, but this is an example of the
> type of flexibility that just setting a sinlge value in preferences
> doesn't allow.
> > ~Brian
I agree with Doug here. An example of current use of this is in the
Detailed Descendant and Ancestor reports where the first entry is normally
the full given name (if this is what is in the Preferences), but the
paragraph that follows can use the call name if this option has been
chosen by the user.
I will file a feature request.