In message <[email protected]>, Dave Mayall <[email protected]> writes >On Sun, 28 Oct 2001 09:10:27 -0000, you wrote: > > >>In case any one thinks I am banging on about a theoretical situation these >>file numbers have been taken from my records and reflect what has been >>reported to me. If anyone thinks it is an isolated instance there are 19 >>runs of blanks in 1846 BQ1 reported to me so far. This means if someone >>else has to do the range check in my place they have at least 190 pages of >>gaps to investigate to be sure all data that should be present is present >> >>I would be more than happy to let this matter die, but I will not rest easy >>in my mind until I have understood the explanations that Dave and others >>have given so far. >> >>I would dearly love to rest my case. > >:-) > >I'm actually rather impressed that so many people worry that it will >be a problem. > >This will be tackled in a number of ways, in order to draw together a >number of discrete units to make up a complete quarter. > >The +PAGE,nnn is part of it and will help build up a number of big >data chunks, with some gaps that we will then have to tie together. > >Another facet, particularly with scanned pages will be the link back >to the scanned pages, which we will be sorting out soon. This will >provide valuable data on data-free pages. > >Please, don't worry! We will be able to work round the blank pages. Thanks for the explanation. It seems to me that the problem is that most of us don't know [not that it is anyone's fault - it's just the way it is] how the process works so we probably worry unduly that things might go wrong. -- Philip Powell