So, how much of this support should we remove? As a project, I believe it is our responsibility to encourage our users to store their data in a standards-compliant, portable structure - for their own benefit.
Deleting a module (the cemetery report) is actually quite tricky. The upgrade process does not allow us to delete modules. Instead, we have to replace the entire set of modules (currently version 3) with a new set of modules (version 4) that excludes this report.
ToyGuy: Please, please do not remove the CEME report! Took me a very long time to customize for PLAC and hope to use it again.
Shemwell - use CSS (even I managed that) or accept CEME being there. It's not much different than other tags that appear in the Edit Window that you/others never use.
/* REMOVE CEME TAG FROM BURI EDIT WINDOW */
I don't think it is necessary to go that far. Most of what you describe could remain. The suggestion was quite correctly:
... new entry of deprecated tags should imho be discouraged and not be as easy as it currently is.
That is not the same as making it impossible.
CEME should not be a default fact, so if anyone does want it, they should have to add it deliberately to the list of available facts. That alone would dispel much of the confusion and request for help regarding it.
Ideally, I would also make the Cemetery report disabled on first installation.
That said - I have no objection to removing it completely. Just seems a lot of unnecessary effort.
Meanwhile we should look for a module solution that allows for removal without requiring major effort by users, but that's a separate topic.
macalter wrote: Please, please do not remove the CEME report! Took me a very long time to customize for PLAC and hope to use it again.
That means "your" Cemetery report is no longer the standard one. So us removing it should make no difference to you. I assume you have correctly renamed yours to something different? Otherwise, you will always face this sort of dilemma. First rule of customising is to ALWAYS copy then re-code.
However, if it is a valuable alternative, send it to me. It might be something I could consider adding to me available add-ons collection for you.
Personally I would not spend much time removing support, I would rather move forward on webtrees 2.0 since that tag would most likely go away anyway at that point. I would however make note that cemetery reporting is useful and possibly add the ability to have metadata to describe reporting categories for places (when they get expanded) which may be important for this place types. I can't think of any other places that may need to be grouped together for reporting. Hospitals? Businesses? Do not know.
Just thinking out loud (with not much thought), but maybe the field (and other non spec fields) could be a different background colour to suggest that this is no longer or not part of the GEDCOM specification (with an explanation in the help as to why it is a different colour). As like others, I have been filling in the Cemetery field with no realisation that it is no longer part of the spec.