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. -- Dave Mayall