I think the end-user should have a choice with these issues.
What about adding another tab for options such as this.  Do you have an
idea of the number of all possible options?


On 6/28/07, Alex Roitman <shura@gramps-project.org > wrote:
On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 20:24 +0200, bm@cage.ugent.be wrote:
> Jerome,
> this is something I wanted to add to 2.3 when my holiday is finished.
> Does this patch already work?

There's more to this than seems at first glance.
Basically, the following questions arise:

1. If person matches the filter, but the spouse does not,
do we export the family?
2. If we do, should it be missing the spouse? OR replaced
with some generic placeholder name?
3. If the spouse matches but the kids don't, what to
do with the family?
4. What if kids match but the spouse does not?
5. Should we export the source if the only reference
comes from the person that is not exported?

I could go on and on. The GEDCOM export makes some choices,
but they may not necessarily be the optimal. We should
work out the policy of what to do, and then implement
it in all exports. Ideally, with a single piece of code
that all exporters would inherit from.


Alexander Roitman   http://gramps-project.org

This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
Gramps-devel mailing list