I tried three things to see if I could clear the html tags out of the source text. I picked three consecutive sources in my report so it would be easy to check the outcome.
For source #25, I manually re-edited the text in FTB, removing each carriage return then pressing Enter
For source #26, I copied the text from the report into my word processor. I removed all the<p>and replaced </p> with <br>, a line break, then pasted the result into the source text field in FTB
For source #27, I copied the text from the physical report and pasted it, HTML tags and all, into the source text field in FTB.
I published my tree then ran another Family Book. I deselected everything but Sources so I would get the book more quickly.
Trial #1 had no effect. The HTML tags came right back.
Trial #2 cleared out the HTML, but the line breaks were ignored. I had one long line of text that was difficult to read.
Trial #3 simply doubled the HTML. <p>Marriage licence became</p> became <p><p>Marriage licence became</p></p>
Congratulations, Suzanne -- you've discovered a nasty bug and we hope MH will fix it.
In the meantime, let's ignore the "WOW" beside the Family Book choice. It's not quite WOW quality yet.
Downloaded OO4.0 and added the .pdf import extensiion. It works okay on short .pdf files but loading the family book looks to take a long time, more than I'm willing to spend. Didn't crash or hang up, just took a long time. Might work, for all I know.
Interesting! I have 13 trees in FTB (I do not publish to MH), where a majority of them have some people in more than one tree. I would eventually like to make a combined tree (as well as the current ones), but I am put off by the thought of having to remove multiple instances of duplicates and whether removing these duplicates will affect the lineage of all the families.
You are right, currently we do not have the option to merge a GEDCOM with an existing tree online. This option is only availbale in the Family Tree Builder software, which you can't use, because you are working with a Mac.
I reported the request to merge a GEDCOM also online already to the responsible department and we will look into this possibility. Besides this we are also working an a Mac version for the Family Tree Builder software, but I can't make any promises when this version will be released.
Remo (from another thread) took my two trees via email and merged them in FTB and sent them back to me. All the pics fell off, but that is managable as the program I initially built them in (MacFamilyTree maker -- elegant interface/lousy reports) exports the media in a separate file. I simply drag the media to my email and email it in. Then it's just tagging. Not ideal, but functional.
So it is probably worth it, from my end, to resurrect an old PC so that I can do my own merging.
I found out that my parents where related a number of generations back and if I had split my tree I would maybe not noticed that.
An other issue is that when I go thru Smart Matches I notice that I have to handle several instances for a person from certain administrators. Some times up to 10 copies from different trees from the same adminitrator. I have started to ignore trees from those administrators.
I also like the idea of splitting the tree into two or four. I find two is fine.
My parents and relations; and my wife's parents and relations. That makes it simple for my children to look up their family tree, in two parts. The decision to go for two trees was easy, my wifes family have few if any marriages between and within branches. My own, on the other hand, is quite impossible to show in separate 'my father' and 'my mother' lines. Cousin marriages, double cousin relationships (four siblings in one line married four siblings in another, their cousins, I think). And many of my father's family married members of my mother's family though they were not personally related at all; their children are cousins, say, of mine on BOTH sides).
But what is the problem with entering your children more than once? In these days it would be surprising (though fine, of course) if you had nine children like Dad's mum, or eleven like Mum's mum, so it would not be onerous putting in the details!