On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Mark Polesky <markpole...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> WRT the flexible vertical spacing dimensions, the upper > attachment points for 'space and 'minimum-distance currently > align with the Y-coordinate of the origin (0,0) of the upper > item. For systems this is the middle line of the nearest > staff, and for markups this is the highest point of the > markup. In the newest docs (NR 4.1.2 as of yesterday), > these are called "reference points". > > I think that most of the resulting dimensions are what the > user would naturally expect them to be, except when the > upper item is a title/markup. In these cases, I think the > most natural attachment point would be the *bottom* of the > upper markup. > I would argue that the baseline is more natural then the bottom. Moreover, using the baseline as a reference point will result in more even spacing of multiple consecutive lines of markup. > > This applies to 3 of the 8 flexible vertical dimensions: > * after-title-spacing > * between-title-spacing > * bottom-system-spacing > > The proposed change to after-title-spacing needs no comment. > > For between-title-spacing however, I should mention that if > the upper attachment point (of 'space and 'minimum-distance) > is moved to the bottom of the upper markup, then the > 'padding value is basically rendered redundant. This is not actually true (even if we change the refpoint to the bottom) because minimum-distance measures the distance from the refpoint of the markup to the *refpoint* of the next system, while padding measures the distance to the *top* of the next system. In that > case, 'padding would only influence the spacing if it were > larger than 'minimum-distance, and making 'padding larger > than 'minimum-distance is generally pointless since that in > turn would render 'minimum-distance redundant. That being > said, I don't think this is a problem; the spacing behavior > would still be more natural IMO. And a simple explanation > for this unique case could be added to the docs. > > Of the three, bottom-system-spacing is slightly more > complicated, since it currently controls the spacing below > systems *and* markups, when either is the last on a page. > So the natural attachment point for systems would remain the > same, but would be shifted to the lowest Y-coordinate for > markups (ideally). > > Personally, I think we should add a new variable to control > the spacing between a markup and the bottom margin. We > could call it bottom-markup-spacing for now, but see this > post for my proposed variable renaming: > This is easy enough to add (and the naming seems fine to me). Cheers, Joe
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
