Thread: [Gedcom-parse-devel] Gedcom-parse mailing list
Status: Beta
Brought to you by:
verthezp
Menu
▾
▴
gedcom-parse-devel
|
From: Peter V. <Pet...@ad...> - 2001-12-28 07:21:25
|
Hi guys,
I've created a mailing list for discussions on gedcom-parse
development. The mail address is:
ged...@li...
Best regards,
Peter.
--
===================================================================
Peter Verthez Software engineer
Email at work: mailto:Pet...@al...
at home: mailto:Pet...@ad...
WWW: http://gallery.uunet.be/Peter.Verthez
===================================================================
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before. -
Dwight D. Eisenhower
|
|
From: Geert V. <Gee...@pa...> - 2001-12-30 13:20:17
|
Hello Peter, I have downloaded the latest sources from the cvs tree, and I compile it, then I tried the testgedcom on my own gedcom file produced by lifelines. [gvtienen@gandalf t]$ ../testgedcom -2 ~/cvs/geert.ged >tmp.output ERROR: Error on line 5: The tag 'TIME' is not a valid tag within 'HEAD' ERROR: Error on line 1: parse error 0 HEAD 1 SOUR LIFELINES 3.0.6 1 DEST ANY 1 DATE 26 AUG 2001 1 TIME 10:31 0 @F1@ FAM 1 HUSB @I1@ 1 WIFE @I2@ ... Kind regards, Geert |
|
From: Geert V. <Gee...@pa...> - 2001-12-30 13:59:42
|
Geert Vantienen wrote: > Hello Peter, > > I have downloaded the latest sources from the cvs tree, and I compile > it, > then I tried the testgedcom on my own gedcom file > produced by lifelines. > > [gvtienen@gandalf t]$ ../testgedcom -2 ~/cvs/geert.ged >tmp.output > ERROR: Error on line 5: The tag 'TIME' is not a valid tag within 'HEAD' > ERROR: Error on line 1: parse error > > 0 HEAD > 1 SOUR LIFELINES 3.0.6 > 1 DEST ANY > 1 DATE 26 AUG 2001 > 1 TIME 10:31 > 0 @F1@ FAM > 1 HUSB @I1@ > 1 WIFE @I2@ > ... > > Kind regards, > > Geert Hello, After updating (several times) the gedcom file with an editor: ERROR: Error on line 5: The tag 'SUBM' is mandatory within 'HEAD', but missing ERROR: Error on line 6: The tag 'GEDC' is mandatory within 'HEAD', but missing ERROR: Error on line 9: The tag 'CHAR' is mandatory within 'HEAD', but missing I have also empty source lines (I guess this was my own mistake when adding a new person with lifelines: ERROR: Error on line 18: Missing value 0 @F1@ FAM 1 HUSB @I1@ 1 WIFE @I2@ 1 MARR 2 DATE 21 Aug 1865 2 PLAC Kermt 2 SOUR 1 CHIL @I78@ ... Something simular for: ERROR: Error on line 219: Missing value 0 @S5@ SOUR 1 REFN 1 TITL doodsbrief 1 AUTH 0 @F10@ FAM ... I also have errors like: ERROR: Error on line 932: The tag 'CITY' is not a valid tag within 'RESI' ERROR: Error on line 933: The tag 'POST' is not a valid tag within 'RESI' 0 @I44@ INDI 1 NAME X/XX/ 1 SEX M 1 RESI 2 ADDR Zelebaan 000 2 CITY Lokeren 2 POST 9160 1 NOTE xxxxxxxxxxx 1 FAMC @F11@ 0 @I45@ INDI I thought that in a RESI block you could have a ADDR block in which you can have POST and CITY lines ... http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~pmcbride/gedcom/55gcch2.htm#ADDRESS_STRUCTURE Kind regards, Geert |
|
From: prapp <pr...@er...> - 2001-12-30 18:05:52
|
At 02:53 PM 2001-12-30 +0100, Geert Vantienen wrote: >0 @I44@ INDI >1 NAME X/XX/ >1 SEX M >1 RESI >2 ADDR Zelebaan 000 >2 CITY Lokeren >2 POST 9160 >1 NOTE xxxxxxxxxxx >1 FAMC @F11@ >0 @I45@ INDI > >I thought that in a RESI block you could have a ADDR block in which you >can have >POST and CITY lines ... >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~pmcbride/gedcom/55gcch2.htm#ADDRESS_STRUCTURE FWIW, your CITY appears to be at level 2, so it is not within the ADDR, but within the RESI. |
|
From: Peter V. <Pet...@ad...> - 2001-12-30 18:06:27
|
Hi Geert,
As it says: it's invalid syntax according to the Gedcom spec
(the TIME tag should be on level 2). Compatibility with
non-standard syntaxes is not in yet...
Cheers,
Peter.
Geert Vantienen wrote:
>
> Hello Peter,
>
> I have downloaded the latest sources from the cvs tree, and I compile
> it,
> then I tried the testgedcom on my own gedcom file
> produced by lifelines.
>
> [gvtienen@gandalf t]$ ../testgedcom -2 ~/cvs/geert.ged >tmp.output
> ERROR: Error on line 5: The tag 'TIME' is not a valid tag within 'HEAD'
> ERROR: Error on line 1: parse error
>
> 0 HEAD
> 1 SOUR LIFELINES 3.0.6
> 1 DEST ANY
> 1 DATE 26 AUG 2001
> 1 TIME 10:31
> 0 @F1@ FAM
> 1 HUSB @I1@
> 1 WIFE @I2@
> ...
--
===================================================================
Peter Verthez Software engineer
Email at work: mailto:Pet...@al...
at home: mailto:Pet...@ad...
WWW: http://gallery.uunet.be/Peter.Verthez
===================================================================
I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it.
Edgar Allan Poe
|
|
From: Geert V. <Gee...@pa...> - 2002-01-01 21:55:02
|
Hello Peter, In the callbacks you now pass the tag as a char*, is it possible to pass them as enum value as they are defined in the gedcom.h file ? This would simplify the callback of : ELT_SUB_INDIV_GEN because this one is used for almost all events. Thanks, Geert |
|
From: Peter V. <Pet...@ad...> - 2002-01-02 09:34:32
|
Geert Vantienen wrote: > > Hello Peter, > > In the callbacks you now pass the tag as a char*, > is it possible to pass them as enum value as they > are defined in the gedcom.h file ? No problem, but then you'll need both, because if I just pass e.g. ELT_SUB_INDIV_GEN, then you won't know which tag it really was. Or did you mean passing them as TAG_BIRT, TAG_DEAT, ... ? Those are not defined in gedcom.h, but in the header generated by YACC. But maybe that would even be better. I'll see whether I can move these to gedcom.h. But then also, you'll need the original char* value to, at least for the user-defined tags. Best regards, Peter. > This would simplify the callback of : > ELT_SUB_INDIV_GEN because this one is used > for almost all events. > > Thanks, > Geert > > _______________________________________________ > Gedcom-parse-devel mailing list > Ged...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gedcom-parse-devel -- =================================================================== Peter Verthez Software engineer Email at work: mailto:Pet...@al... at home: mailto:Pet...@ad... WWW: http://gallery.uunet.be/Peter.Verthez =================================================================== You know you've been hacking LISP too long, (if (> (count #\( sentence) *a-lot*)) |
|
From: Peter V. <Pet...@ad...> - 2001-12-30 18:16:24
|
Hi Geert, Lifelines doesn't seem to be very strict on the Gedcom spec. It will take a lot of work to have compatibility, but eventually it will have to be done... Geert Vantienen wrote: > > I have also empty source lines (I guess this was my own mistake when > adding a new > person with lifelines: > ERROR: Error on line 18: Missing value > > 0 @F1@ FAM > 1 HUSB @I1@ > 1 WIFE @I2@ > 1 MARR > 2 DATE 21 Aug 1865 > 2 PLAC Kermt > 2 SOUR > 1 CHIL @I78@ > ... Indeed, the SOUR tag needs a value (either a pointer or a simple text giving the source description). > > Something simular for: > ERROR: Error on line 219: Missing value > 0 @S5@ SOUR > 1 REFN > 1 TITL doodsbrief > 1 AUTH > 0 @F10@ FAM > ... Similar for the REFN and AUTH tags... > > I also have errors like: > ERROR: Error on line 932: The tag 'CITY' is not a valid tag within 'RESI' > ERROR: Error on line 933: The tag 'POST' is not a valid tag within 'RESI' > > 0 @I44@ INDI > 1 NAME X/XX/ > 1 SEX M > 1 RESI > 2 ADDR Zelebaan 000 > 2 CITY Lokeren > 2 POST 9160 > 1 NOTE xxxxxxxxxxx > 1 FAMC @F11@ > 0 @I45@ INDI > > I thought that in a RESI block you could have a ADDR block in which you > can have > POST and CITY lines ... > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~pmcbride/gedcom/55gcch2.htm#ADDRESS_STRUCTURE Correct, but CITY and POST have to be one level down, not at the same level as ADDR... Lots of work to have compatibility !! Cheers, Peter. -- =================================================================== Peter Verthez Software engineer Email at work: mailto:Pet...@al... at home: mailto:Pet...@ad... WWW: http://gallery.uunet.be/Peter.Verthez =================================================================== I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it. Edgar Allan Poe |
|
From: prapp <pr...@er...> - 2001-12-30 18:40:28
|
>Lifelines doesn't seem to be very strict on the Gedcom spec. >It will take a lot of work to have compatibility, but eventually >it will have to be done... I'd go much further, and say LifeLines doesn't care much about the spec, frankly. You can maintain GEDCOM data that is completely correct by the lineage-linked standard (when you enter new records, just don't leave blank values in places that they aren't legal in lineage-linked GEDCOM), but you can also maintain event-linked GEDCOM if you wish, or almost any homebrew type of GEDCOM. The LifeLines UI only really understands lineage-linked GEDCOM, but it doesn't much help you maintain perfectly correct lineage-linked GEDCOM, so the onus is on the user to know the rules. I imagine that the best course of action is what Geert is doing -- exporting it & running it thru a parser, and finding out, however painfully, what the rules are :) - Perry PS: The "1 TIME" bug in the header was reported & fixed in LifeLines only recently (it should, as Peter says, be "2 TIME"). In fact, the headers were missing some other mandatory lines until recently. PPS: A nifty little LifeLines program that outputs a database in GEDCOM, but fills in placeholders for blank values that are not legally blank, would be nice... |
|
From: prapp <pr...@er...> - 2001-12-30 18:47:34
|
>PS: The "1 TIME" bug in the header was reported & fixed in LifeLines >only recently (it should, as Peter says, be "2 TIME"). In fact, the >headers were missing some other mandatory lines until recently. LifeLines, if recent enough version, will fill in all the mandatory header lines (I think), but if you have any non-ascii data, you need to inform it of the correct HDR_CHAR line, via an entry in your .linesrc (or lines.cfg) of the form: HDR_CHAR=1 CHAR UTF-8 (By default it will say ASCII there.) - Perry |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X