Have you even read what I have been writing at all?
Regarding Gramps XML: You are conflating ‘widely adopted’ with ‘technically sound.’ Gramps XML is an open-source schema that is far more capable of representing complex historical reality than GEDCOM ever was. It supports hierarchical places, event sharing, and complex citations without the ‘lossy’ workarounds GEDCOM requires. Both the DTD and RELAX NG Schema for Gramps XML and the database structure are openly available online. In fact, a link to the schema used in an export is always written at the very top of the XML file itself.
Furthermore, Gramps XML has the potential to support even more advanced features for those who need them, without compromising for those who prefer a relatively simple structure for a basic family tree.
And as I have written in my other post:
I advocate for supporting much more commonly used exchange and transport formats alongside it.
And I have been doing this approx. since Gramps 5.0 was in “Public Beta”.
One of the reasons for this is that when the wider research communities—historians, sociologists, and data scientists—see that they can actually export and import high-fidelity data to and from Gramps, the project will attract more people with specialized knowledge.
This includes experts in Python, R, and Julia who currently find GEDCOM too primitive and ‘lossy’ for serious analysis.
By clinging to a 40-year-old theological transport format as the ‘only’ standard, we are effectively locking ourselves out of the modern Digital Humanities ecosystem.
Instead of asking ‘who else uses Gramps XML,’ we should be asking: ‘Why are we still letting a religious extraction format from the 80s dictate the limits of our scientific research?’
And NO, this is NOT off-topic in a discussion about GEDCOM tags as long as it seems people don’t really understand where they come from.
Note: This text was originally drafted in Norwegian, then translated and refined for flow and technical clarity using AI assistance (Google AI).