You wouldn't have each part of the date superscripted anyway. You'd have 1,2,3 at the end of the date. Each footnote would detail what it sourced--the full date, only the month, only the month and year, the year, etc (this much you can do in Legacy by clever phrasing in "Detail"). If you read genealogical articles BCE (before computer era), they often dealt with situations like this, and elegantly, in prose--that is, they intelligently and succinctly parsed the sources among the various parts of the data, including alternate dates (or locations, or given names, or spellings). That a computer program report can't do it as elegantly is not a reason to confuse precisely what sources what. Still, if you generate fields for all parts of a date, and all parts of a location (4 levels, at least), you'd slow down the recording of complete and uncontroversial info so much that everyone would go nuts. It's a cost-benefit issue (about which people justifiably disagree). Jonathan
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kristian Fjeldsg�rd Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 7:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Independent sourcing: was: Separating date sources from place sources suggestion No Kristian in Norway (Remember Alternative dates in Events) P� Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:41:31 -0700, skrev Lisa Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You don't think it's a problem to have sources numbers after each > element > in > a date (i.e., day, month, year)? > > Lisa > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kristian Fjeldsg�rd" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 3:48 PM > Subject: Re: [LegacyUG] Independent sourcing: was: Separating date > sources > from place sources suggestion > > >> >> Lisa >> >> I don't think proper sourcing is ugly, it shows you have done proper >> work. >> It's allso a topic about detailed sourcing, using the "Show list" >> feature >> that has been discussed on this list more than once. >> >> I believ that for the basic informations, names and birth/death >> informatioan every part should be sources individually, even if I get >> many footnotes. >> >> Kristian in Norway >> >> P� Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:09:40 -0700, skrev Lisa Young >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> > I can understand your frustration, I share it, but I'm wondering >> > how >> you >> > want this foot-noted: >> > >> > 17(1) Jan (2) 1876 (3) etc >> > >> > Could get pretty ugly. > Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > > To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ > > To unsubscribe please visit: > http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp > -- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ Legacy User Group Etiquette guidelines can be found at: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ 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 To find past messages, please go to our searchable archives at: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup%40mail.millenniacorp.com/ To unsubscribe please visit: http://www.legacyfamilytree.com/LegacyLists.asp
