HI Dale, I believe that you are referring to the following discussion. Hi Don, I am going to try to see if I can fix the issue without eliminating = anything. I am thinking since there are only 7 instances in which a#d can = exist as suffixes, I will make these exceptions and hope that the numbers = wil then translate properly. =20 Thanks, Mario >>> Don.Barrett@xxxxxx 04/19/04 11:47PM >>> I am wondering if an algorithm could be developed for the translator of = .brf books which could eliminate the print page numbers which are often mistranslated as they look like words. For example, a#eg is translated as ableeg when in reality it is simply braille page 2 of print page 57 with = an a in front of it. Any thoughts? Don >>> drlieser@xxxxxxx 04/23/04 06:22PM >>> A few days ago someone brought up the problem of reverse-translating the print page numbers often found in recent additions to NLS Braille books. = As I recall, the response and proposed solution included discussion of the "dis" sign, dots 2-5-6. If I understand the situation in question correctly, that Braille sign is not involved, and therefore would offer nothing toward a solution. The print numbering I'm aware of either = contains a line of dashes ending with a number sign and the number, or a Taylor = code letter immediately followed by the number sign and components to make up = the digit(s). Is there a plan in the works to fix the translation situation I've just described? Dale