At 12:04 PM 12/19/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>Dave: > >I just checked and using a tag (and excluding tagged individuals) on web pages >does not entirely work. For example, I tagged a child I was not sure of. >Legacy did not generate a web-page for that child, but it did reference that >child from the parent's web-pages. > >However, using a tag to exclude individuals on an export would probably work >just fine. > >I guess if I want to create web-pages and use tags to exclude certain >individuals I will have to export to a temporary Legacy database first and >create my web-pages from there. > >Legacy Developers: > >How about a "Private" flag for individuals? > >-- > >Dennis M. Kowallek >[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dennis, and others... I'm going to weigh in here with what I hope is a workable alternative. I can't think of much that gets me so over-the-top as looking through family trees, gedcoms, etc. and finding the last 60 yrs or so to be nothing but "living" or "private" annotations with little if any data... which is to, frankly, be read as "usefulness." I would think that it would be best, if this is such a concern to folks, to simply make a copy of your "real" Legacy file and then "sanitize" for public distribution making no mention whatsoever of these "private" individuals ... as if your work ended near on 100 years ago. There can be no utility whatsoever to even suggest additional individuals exist if the pertinent data cannot be checked, verified, or included. There are lots of these family trees out there which are not worth the trouble to look at simply because they start (with real information) about 1840 and go back earlier. 1840 to present is apparently too private for discussion? Maybe it's just one of my pet peeves... sorry Scott Carlton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp
