I have one to add:
How I wonder could Turnitin.com.au (UN of South Australia’s Baby) be applied to citations in GEDCOM files, and would that work after importation or before, or both?
I, too, am continually frustrated with acceptable formats across the globe. cheers sonya
PS My website is still under construction
This is because some sites and programs don’t know how to ignore user defined tags as detailed in the GEDCOM specs. We will be releasing an update that will have an option to strip the user defined tags out of a GEDCOM to work with those systems that don’t know how to ignore user defined tags.
In the meantime, WorldConnect has an option where you can specify tags to ignore. You can reprocess using the advanced option and remove these custom tags in the gedcom:
_UID,_SDATE, _BIBL,_SUBQ, _TMPLT,_COLOR
I’ll save some quibbles about software architecture approaches and supposed camps for later, and focus on what you’ve shown here.
In this post you’ve examined the current quality of the GEDCOM output with regard to EE-citations. A very quick summary might be that the FTM export is poor, Legacy 7 export is mediocre and RM 4 export is good.
That the citations do not transfer well from one program to another is a foregone conclusion, we’d need some kind of GEDCOM standard for EE-style citations, and there is none yet.
I’d still be interested to hear how well these three program imports each other’s citations, to get an even better idea of the status quo.
The more intriguing question is this; how well does each application import its own citations back in again?
That test relates to this fundamental consideration: is it reasonable to say that an application really supports citations if even that application itself cannot import its own exported citations back in without loss?
Another relevant question is how well their export matches the existing GEDCOM standard?
That question directly relates to another practical issue: how well do other genealogy applications import their current EE-style citations?