Louis Kessler’s Behold Blog The Behold User Forum
Forum Posts
162.
Beta? - Forum post by trolleydave in General Discussion - 9 Sep 2012
Given all the highly significant changes you're making in 1.1, wouldn't a public beta be useful so we wouldn't all have to hold our breath until you've ironed out all the complexities of date checking and manual updating? Even if the life events weren't all as polished as you'd like, it would us adoring ...
163.
Misleading message or Windows playing up? - Forum post by brett in Report a Problem - 14 Jul 2012
Thanks for the explanation. It was the 'set up a bit differently than other programs' that tricked me.
164.
Misleading message or Windows playing up? - Forum post by lkessler in Report a Problem - 14 Jul 2012
Brett:
Behold's options are set up a bit differently than other programs. I did this early on in the development, and I thought it was very flexible, but most people stumble over it. I think I'm either going to have to explain it well in the documentation, or else I'll have to change it. None-the-less, here's ...
165.
NAME with Level 2 tag - Forum post by lkessler in Questions and Answers - 14 Jul 2012
Brett,
The DATE and PLAC tag are not allowed under a NAME tag. In GEDCOM, look up the PERSONAL_NAME_STRUCTURE.
Behold doesn't yet check for tags in improper places. That check will be added when I do GEDCOM export and include a "perfect" GEDCOM 5.5.1 validator with it.
Louis
166.
Misleading message or Windows playing up? - Forum post by brett in Report a Problem - 14 Jul 2012
After import of GEDCOM, when I check the log file for full details, the following appears towards the bottom of the section.
Only the first 100 of each type of message are listed.
To display all messages:
Uncheck the "Log File: Max 100 messages" setting
under Organize -> Report -> Extra Info
and reinput ...
167.
NAME with Level 2 tag - Forum post by brett in Questions and Answers - 14 Jul 2012
Louis
The following is created after GEDCOM export by one of the programs I use. Behold does not flag it as error or warning.
1 NAME Shown as First Middle Last on First2 Middle2 Last2's Marriage Record, NSW BDM 1891/999.
2 DATE 01 JAN 1891
2 PLAC Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
However, one of the other ...
168.
GEDCOM Date format (again) - Forum post by lkessler in Questions and Answers - 14 Jul 2012
Brett:
DAY := dd { Size 1:2 }
dd is a numeric digit whose value is within the valid range of the days for the associated calendar month.
My interpretation of GEDCOM is that both 03 and 3 are allowed. It does not say that leading zero's are not allowed.
Behold reads both and allows 03 and does not give any ...
169.
GEDCOM Date format (again) - Forum post by brett in Questions and Answers - 14 Jul 2012
Louis
Another date query.
What is your (and therefore probably Behold's) interpetation of the following date:
03 Mar 2012
Is it valid or invalid GEDCOM 5.5.1 if it has the leading zero?
Brett
170.
Date validation - case sensitive - Forum post by lkessler in Report a Problem - 14 Apr 2012
Yes. All parts of the date. And that actually simplifies the work that Behold is doing.
Personally, I think it is a great idea that the GEDCOM designers had. I should have discovered it earlier, but now that I have, I'll make use of it.
Louis
Prev 151-160
Beta? - Forum post by trolleydave in General Discussion - 9 Sep 2012