* FH V6 Diagram Broken Data Refs

[tatewise]

If FH V6 Diagrams the following scenarios apply and are derived from the Speculative Link ~ Diagrams (12006) thread:

1. In FH V6 there are no problems with FH V5 compatible Data Refs such as %INDI.FAMC.NOTE2%.
2. In FH V6 both the Text Scheme and Boxes Condition DRA <<Insert mode for almost every Contextual Data Reference says Expression is not valid for this context, but if entered by hand they are all OK.
3. In FH V6 the Boxes Enter Expression DRA <<Insert Data Ref mode omits leading & trailing % in Data Reference: box, but correctly includes them in Expression after clicking OK.
4. In FH V6 the Edit Text Scheme Item DRA <<Insert mode correctly shows leading & trailing % in Data Reference: box, but omits them from Template after clicking Insert!
5. In FH V6 the Edit Text Scheme Item allows Contextual Data References in the Template, but in many cases display nothing:
   1. %CUR_SPOU% in Root, Descendant & some Ancestor Box Types
      (%CUR_SPOU>% is OK)
   2. %CUR_FAMC% in Spouse & Ancestor Box Types
      (%CUR_FAMC>% is OK)
   3. %CUR_SP_FAMC% in Root & Descendant Box Types
      (%CUR_SP_FAMC>% is OK)
   4. Thus a. b. c. upset %CUR_FAMC.NOTE2% & %CUR_SP_FAMC.NOTE2% etc
   5. %CUR_DGM_ROOT_FAM% in all Box Types (except if Diagram Root is a Couple!)
   6. %CUR_DGM_ROOT_COUPLE_FAM% in all Box Types
   7. %CUR_TREE_ROOT% & %CUR_TREE_ROOT_FAM% are often wrong together in any Box Type, unless I misunderstand Tree Root that I thought was the initial Diagram Root.
6. Maybe the Tree Root and Diagram Root Individual and Diagram Root Couple need better explanation in the Help especially how they relate to their Context Data Refs.
7. All the above cases need testing in Boxes Condition Expressions. My brief experiments suggest similar but not identical problems exist there too.

IMO these are all implementation bugs that should fixed ASAP.