gedcom to html

[Judy M]

I saw somewhere a programme which converted a gedcom file into a form suitable for inclusion into a web page.Has anyone any experience there?

[Mary Young]

You could download and test Dynamic Family Tree https://www.dftcom2.co.uk/ - it's free and looks good, though I haven't used it in anger yet

[Guy Etchells]

There are many such programs
Ged2www a freeware program which I use for my Bottesford database 11,498 Births, Deaths & Marriages
https://www.lesandchris.com/ged2www/

Ged2wwwf
https://home.nordnet.fr/~jbfahy/ged2wwwe.htm

GedHtree
https://www.gedhtree.com/

to name but a few
Cheers
Guy

[Mark]

Yes, there are many GEDCOM to HTML programs out there, some are free, some are shareware and now many of the usual genealogy programs include the ability to generate a website.

One "problem" though in generating a website in this way, is that you typically get hundreds of static webpages, maybe even thousands.

A better solution may be to use a database and PHP scripts to generate webpages on-demand from users. ie the pages are created on-the-fly based on the request for data from the database. One such OpenSource project is phpGedView ... https://www.phpgedview.net ... which offers many user-selectable languages, a variety of themes, and can handle multiple databases within the same site.

Depends really on what sort of webhosting you have, and what kinds of programs (scripts) you can run.

Mark Hattam

[Guy Etchells]

Yes agreed, but the major problem with programs like phpGedview is backwards compatibility. Have you checked that early browsers can deal with the scripts and what about webtv and other access formats how do they cope.
Family history is on of those subject where the participants use outdated technology and I beleive genealogical websites should provide access to all.

This is not to say I don't like the output of phpgedview, just that I have questions.
Cheers
Guy

[Mark]

phpGedView (like the rest of my own websites) is standards compliant XHTML 1.0 which means that it should look consistent in any modern browser.

Backwards compatibility is sometimes a good idea, but how far back should one go? Do you assume "frames", do you assume "tables", do you assume text can wrap around images?

Also, outdated versions of browsers are unsupported by their creators, and many have exploits. I would caution against running outdated browsers for security reasons as well as adheranmessage=phpGedView (like the rest of my own websites) is standards compliant XHTML 1.0 which means that it should look consistent in any modern browser.

Backwards compatibility is sometimes a good idea, but how far back should one go? Do you assume "frames", do you assume "tables", do you assume text can wrap around images?

Also, outdated versions of browsers are unsupported by their creators, and many have exploits. I would caution against running outdated browsers for security reasons as well as adherance to W3 standards.

Most browsers are free and widely distributed on magazine cover disks, so their is little reason not to upgrade.

Mark

[Guy Etchells]

I prefer to make my sites as compatible as possible, which is why I keep them simple and avoid frames, java scripts and many other enhancements.
My stats show that they are viewed my a number of old browsers.
On top of the browser issue there is also the issue of the site being used by people with disabilities and require to use software to read the pages rather than simply view the pages.

It would be very simple for me to use a program such as Dreamweaver MX to code my pages and include many bells & whistles but in doing so I would be placing outside the reach of some users.
I feel that anyone who visitmessage=I prefer to make my sites as compatible as possible, which is why I keep them simple and avoid frames, java scripts and many other enhancements.
My stats show that they are viewed my a number of old browsers.
On top of the browser issue there is also the issue of the site being used by people with disabilities and require to use software to read the pages rather than simply view the pages.

It would be very simple for me to use a program such as Dreamweaver MX to code my pages and include many bells & whistles but in doing so I would be placing outside the reach of some users.
I feel that anyone who visits my sites should be able to use whatever browser or software they wish rather than me dictate what software to use, other webmasters take a different view. It all depends on who you are targetting.

Cheers
Guy

[Mark]

If someone wishes to make a "theme" for phpGedView (or any similar type of themed site), then they can do that. The server does the hard work, all that needs to be "delivered" is the html code back to the browser.

At the moment all the themes are W3 standard XHTML 1.0 ... but there's nothing to stop anyone writing a HTML 3.2 compliant standard theme. But then does one use non-standard tags to try and gain a consistent look in Netscape 3 or 4?

But I'd still caution anyone to only use browsers that are currently supported by the vendors, in just the same way as it'd be foolhardy to use an out-of-life OS or a non-uptodate anti-virus package.

Modern browsers have more things in them for people with disabilites than older versions anyway, as do operating systems with more ways of facilitating user-input.

[Guy Etchells]

If someone wishes to make a "theme" for phpGedView (or any similar type of themed site), then they can do that. The server does the hard work, all that needs to be "delivered" is the html code back to the browser.

At the moment all the themes are W3 standard XHTML 1.0 ... but there's nothing to stop anyone writing a HTML 3.2 compliant standard theme. But then does one use non-standard tags to try and gain a consistent look in Netscape 3 or 4?

But I'd still caution anyone to only use browsers that are currently supported by the vendors, in just the same way as it'd be foolhardy to use an out-of-life OS or a non-uptodate anti-virus package.

Modern browsers have more things in them for people with disabilites than older versions anyway, as do operating systems with more ways of facilitating user-input.

Yes, I agree withh all you say but there is always a problem upgrading software with old computers in that most software gets bloated as it develops (not all) this means that old computer which many family historians use cannot be upgraded from the old operating systems and browsers.
cheers
Do none of your sites visitors use old OS or browsers mine certainly do?

Guy

[Mark]

My genealogy website over the past three days has had these figures (you'll recognise the default Analog tables I hope)

72 51.43% 6431 39.05% 62.45 12.72% MSIE
68 48.57% 5719 34.72% 54.39 11.08% **MSIE/6
20 14.29% 417 2.53% 5.77 1.18% Firefox
12 8.57% 371 2.25% 4.37 0.89% **Firefox/1
13 9.29% 984 5.97% 31.74 6.47% Netscape (compatible)
11 7.86% 12 0.07% 0.29 0.06% Baiduspider+
11 7.86% 12 0.07% 0.29 0.06% **Baiduspider+
7 5.00% 7792 47.31% 353.93 72.10% msnbot
5 3.57% 582 3.53% 30.85 6.28% Googlebot
5 3.57% 5 0.03% 0.15 0.03% Konqueror
4 2.86% 153 0.93% 2.21 0.45% Safari
1 0.71% 1 0.01% 0.01 * Java
1 0.71% 2 0.01% 0.01 * NutchCVS
1 0.71% 1 0.01% 0.01 * libwww-perl
0 * 90 0.55% 3.47 0.71% [not listed: 8 browsers]

6765 91 Windows
3246 60 **Windows XP
2082 18 **Windows 2000
668 6 **Windows ME
725 5 **Windows 98
5 2 **Windows Server 2003
8715 29 Known robots
740 10 OS unknown
8 6 Unix
8 6 **Linux
242 4 [not listed: 1 OS]

Mark