|
|
|
|
Administrators
Customers
Important Contributors
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: 11 hours ago
Posts: 3,419,
Visits: 26,409
|
'lego audio video erro ergo disco' or "I read, I listen, I watch, I make mistakes, therefore I learn"
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
Translator
GenoPro version: 2.5.4.1
Last Login: Friday, May 10, 2013
Posts: 43,
Visits: 238
|
There is something wrong in generating reports. Since Ron's improvements to 14b I haven't had a working report at all! Even in beta 15 the problem persists. Can you help me out?
The latest beta15 produces the following log while generating the report:
Generating report to 'J:\Sukupuut\GenoPro Reports\b15SVG\'
Cloning document Sukupuu 22102005...
Opening configuration file Config.xml for skin '\SVG - English Narrative Report'...
Validating picture cache...
Line 70: The file 'genomaps/map.svg' is already assigned. Using 'genomaps/map0.svg' instead...
Line 70: The file 'genomaps/map.svg' is already assigned. Using 'genomaps/map1.svg' instead...
Line 70: The file 'genomaps/map.svg' is already assigned. Using 'genomaps/map2.svg' instead...
Line 70: The file 'genomaps/map.svg' is already assigned. Using 'genomaps/map3.svg' instead...
Line 70: The file 'genomaps/map.svg' is already assigned. Using 'genomaps/map4.svg' instead...
Line 71: The file 'genomaps/map.htm' is already assigned. Using 'genomaps/map0.htm' instead...
Line 71: The file 'genomaps/map.htm' is already assigned. Using 'genomaps/map1.htm' instead...
Line 71: The file 'genomaps/map.htm' is already assigned. Using 'genomaps/map2.htm' instead...
Line 71: The file 'genomaps/map.htm' is already assigned. Using 'genomaps/map3.htm' instead...
Line 71: The file 'genomaps/map.htm' is already assigned. Using 'genomaps/map4.htm' instead...
Loading dictionary.xml...
Processing template 'init.htm'...
Processing template 'default.htm'...
Processing template 'toc_tree.htm'...
Processing template 'toc_individuals.htm'...
Processing template 'toc_families.htm'...
Processing template 'toc_pictures.htm'...
Processing template 'toc_contacts.htm'...
Processing template 'toc_places.htm'...
Processing template 'toc_sources.htm'...
Processing template 'home.htm'...
Processing template 'heading.htm'...
Processing template 'maps.htm'...
Processing template 'individual.htm'...
The tag 'Individual.birth.baptism.priest' is no longer valid. Try 'Individual.Birth.Baptism.Officiator'
Processing template 'family.htm'...
The tag 'Family.marriage.religious.date' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Date'
The tag 'Family.marriage.religious.place' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Place'
The tag 'Family.marriage.religious.priest' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Officiator'
The tag 'Family.marriage.religious.witnesses' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Witnesses'
The tag 'Family.marriage.civil.date' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Date'
The tag 'Family.marriage.civil.place' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Place'
The tag 'Family.marriage.civil.notary' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Officiator'
The tag 'Family.marriage.civil.witnesses' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Witnesses'
The tag 'Family.marriage.religious.source' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Source'
The tag 'Family.marriage.civil.source' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Source'
The tag 'Family.marriage.religious.IsAnnulled' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).IsAnnulled'
The tag 'Family.marriage.civil.IsAnnulled' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).IsAnnulled'
The tag 'Family.separation.date' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Divorce.Date'
The tag 'Family.separation.place' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Divorce.Place'
The tag 'Family.divorce.date' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Divorce.Date'
The tag 'Family.divorce.place' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Divorce.Place'
The tag 'Family.divorce.source' is no longer valid. Try 'Family.Marriages(0).Divorce.Source'
Error at line 180 (Code/Lang.vbs) generating 'family.fam00001.htm': Invalid procedure call or argument: '[string: "(null)"]'
Microsoft VBScript runtime error 800A0005
|
Edited: Thursday, November 24, 2005 by
GenoProSupport
|
|
|
|
|
Administrators
Customers
Important Contributors
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: 11 hours ago
Posts: 3,419,
Visits: 26,409
|
It looks like you are using pre-Beta 15 report templates with the Beta 15 GenoPro executable and the two are incompatible. Have you changed the default location where GenoPro looks for tempates? If so update that location with the templates that were installed with Beta15.
'lego audio video erro ergo disco' or "I read, I listen, I watch, I make mistakes, therefore I learn"
Edited: Thursday, November 24, 2005 by
Ron
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.0.1.4
Last Login: Monday, September 13, 2010
Posts: 7,
Visits: 143
|
GenoProSupport (11/10/2005)
I think a mistress / lover relationship should be added.If you think that, why is it that it has still not been added after more than 9 months? I also, like the user above, miss the relationship option "long-term relationship". If the trouble is what to call it, then why not simply call it "long term relationship"? Or what about steady (or permanent) relationship or "committed relationship"? I personally prefer "long-term relationship" or "committed relationship".
|
|
|
|
|
Administrators
Moderators
Customers
Gamma
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
Translator
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: 3 hours ago
Posts: 4,886,
Visits: 22,776
|
Neth (8/31/2006)
If you think that, why is it that it has still not been added after more than 9 months?I completely forgot about it. I have noted the following 3 relationships to my "todo" list: - Concubinage
- Mistress/lover
- Long term relationship/committed relationship
I need to find a symbol to draw there relationships and we are ready to go  .
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Members
GenoPro version: 2.0.0.5
Last Login: Sunday, October 29, 2006
Posts: 2,
Visits: 37
|
How about a dashed black line, maybe with dots for concubinage, since it is often an inferior form of marriage. The committed relationship could be a solid blue line. I just don't know about the mistress lover though.
Edited: Saturday, September 2, 2006 by
Reddy
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.0.1.4
Last Login: Monday, September 13, 2010
Posts: 7,
Visits: 143
|
I completely forgot about it. I have noted the following 3 relationships to my "todo" list: - Concubinage
- Mistress/lover
- Long term relationship/committed relationship
I need to find a symbol to draw there relationships and we are ready to go . Are you still working on this? Or have you forgotten it again Now there have been two updates since you wrote this and it has still not been added.
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
GenoPro version: 2.0.1.4
Last Login: Monday, September 13, 2010
Posts: 7,
Visits: 143
|
I apparently need to ask about this again, since I haven't got an answers yet. Are you still working on adding these three relationships?
Edited: Sunday, October 22, 2006 by
GenoProSupport
|
|
|
|
|
Administrators
Moderators
Customers
Gamma
FamilyTrees.GenoPro.com
Translator
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: 3 hours ago
Posts: 4,886,
Visits: 22,776
|
No, I had not forgotten about this. What is needed to change some of those relationships is a file format change. So far, the file format has not changed since Beta 16.I have changed the drawing of the family relationships to draw a house for cohabitation. 
I am open to suggestions to improve this list, yet keep it simple and without confusion. I asked several individuals their advice on the concubine and the best answer came from Ron (September 2006):
Concubine - surely this is synonymous with cohabitation, except that it does not describe the relationship but the status of the female partner. This is exactly the same as the earlier issue of what to call partners in a relationship - spouse, wife, common-law wife, mate, partner, husband, lover,mistress or even concubine. Perhaps there could be a 'title' property on the 'parent' (or should it be 'partner'?) pedigree-link allowing this to be specified. However it should not be included as a relationship type. Mistress/Lover - Mistress again describes the status of the female partner, not the relationship itself. Does 'Lover' differ from 'Dating' ? - dating is perhaps a short-term thing, whereas 'Lover' could be a short or long-term relationship. There is the implication with 'Lover' that one or both partners are married to other people so 'Extramarital affair' is a better description in my opinion. If it is not an extramarital affair then it is covered by 'dating' or 'Long term relationship'. Long Term Relationship/Committed relationship. I believe this is not covered elsewhere and complements 'Dating'. 'Dating' should perhaps be 'Dating or short term relationship' and this option 'Committed or long-term relationship'. As I changed the drawing for the symbols by adding a little house for cohabitation, I think the long-term relationship is covered in the cohabitation. I am thinking of renaming cohabitation to cohabitation (boyfriend/girlfriend) and remove ex-boyfriend/ex-girlfriend from dating. Maybe dating could be renamed seeing (like, "Joe is seeing this girl", meaning he is visiting her from time to time). English is my second language. Any feedback is welcome. Thanks.
Edited: Sunday, October 22, 2006 by
GenoProSupport
|
|
|
|
|
Customers
Important Contributors
GenoPro version: 3.1.0.1
Last Login: Today @ 1:31 AM
Posts: 442,
Visits: 7,617
|
As I changed the drawing for the symbols by adding a little house for cohabitation, I think the long-term relationship is covered in the cohabitation. I discussed this topic once before, and I cannot agree that cohabitation and long-term relationship are essentially the same, although there may be some overlap. The Wikipedia definition of cohabitation is: Cohabitation is defined as an emotional, physical, and intellectually intimate relationship which includes a common living place and which exists without the benefit of legal, cultural, or religious sanction The important qualification here is a common living place, which is not necessary for a long-term relationship. I think Ron's discussion on this point was very well put.
|