Missing Space in Shared Note View GEDCOM Record - ID: 292322
Brought to you by:
canajun2eh,
yalnifj
Menu
▾
▴
#2835 Missing Space in Shared Note View GEDCOM Record - ID: 292322
I found this information previously, but cannot seem to add a comment to reopen the issue. I have this same issue. The previous post was the following:
Note the missing space between NOTE and birth
0 @BI969@ NOTEbirth year from census is 1876
In the original pre-import GEDCOM (via Legacy) the format is:
0 @BI969@ NOTE
1 CONC birth year from census is 1876
This has caused me to lose the first paragraph of my notes in my gedcom exported by Legacy. I am using the latest Legacy version, and PhpGedView version 4.2.3. My son was able to fix the missing space after NOTE for me by editing some files, thus giving me back my notes. When I did an individual report (PDF file or HTML), however, as well as some others, I have still had some problems. Previously (before my son did his fix of the file) it showed a gedcom code in the notes section instead of my note. My son's fix now gives me the first paragraph of the notes, but we are not able to get the rest of the notes to show up (anything after the first paragraph). I have also seen some issues with missing source information (it gives part of the source, but not all, and sometimes not all of the sources, I think). Do you have any ideas how we can fix this problem?
Are you sure you're running PGV version 4.2.3?
I can't reproduce this error. I'm using the SVN version of PGV.
Please e-mail me a ZIP copy of your original GEDCOM, without any of your son's corrections applied, so that I can test it with the version of PGV I'm running. Your information will, of course be kept strictly confidential and will NOT appear on my web-site.
gkroll at keldine.ca
Thank you for your help. It might take me a while to figure out what files I have that you need. The files online have been changed by the program. I might have a pre-fix version there that has been saved and processed by phpgedview to show you what it was doing previously. I will have to figure out which files I have on my computer to match what I put up. I had to do some editing of files to eliminate html codes. When I exported the gedcom, I told it to strip the codes, but it kept some for the sources. Those were showing up on-line. Before I noticed that, however, I noticed the first paragraphs were missing, so there was nothing I did to the file that changed that issue. FYI, I have the latest updates of Legacy, and the latest version of phpGedView. The version it shows is 4.2.3. I noticed the other posting which described my problem exactly, and that is why I referenced it in my posting. It never showed a solution. I exported my gedcom in various ways, and they all seemed to have the same effect. I had my Legacy program privatize the file in the export. I tried stripping html codes, after I noticed they did not display correctly in my notes. There were various options I tried, some showed html codes, some showed rtf codes. But all showed some form of code in some sources, probably in the ones that used the customized templates that Legacy has. Could the option to privatize by my program have made a difference? Did you try that option? As far as I am concerned, that is non-negotiable. It has to be done there for me to be comfortable. I did not let it override source options. I had it export tagged individuals. Under privacy, I told it to suppress details for living people, but I did not have it change them to "living." That was the only box checked under the privacy tab. I tried both exporting as a gedcom 5.5 file and as a Legacy file, using a few personalized options. I exported CHR as BAPM. I excluded address/phone, compiler information, research notes, and to do items. I do have pictures. I used UTF-8 for the export. I don't know if any of these options from Legacy affected the file created by phpGedview. I will see if I can locate a before and after version.
Various problems with formatting of Reports have been entered as separate bug reports. The problems reported here are part of those separate entries.
This bug report is being closed as "duplicate" even though it really isn't....