On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:26 AM, Mark Polesky <markpole...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, so many extensive replies to respond to! It's great, > but it makes for a long post, and I do hope the thread > participants read to the end; there's a lot of relevant > stuff for everyone here. Thanks. > > * * * * * * * * * * > > Joe Neeman wrote: > > 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. > > Okay, that's a good point, so I agree -- baseline is better > than bottom. But do you agree with Carl and Trevor that we > should always use the same reference point for markups? I > was specifically proposing to use the bottom of the upper > markup and the top of the lower markup for > between-title-spacing, but Carl argued eloquently against > it. Carl's argument is probably much more solid than mine, > but just for the record, what do you think? > I don't care so much about one versus two reference points (although the current code only works with one), but I do think that the reference points should not depend on any ascenders or descenders. I've noticed that in many traditionally-engraved scores, the > distance from the bookTitleMarkup baseline to the first > system seems to be *independent* of the distance from the > scoreTitleMarkup baseline to the first system. > > For example, say score1 has title/subtitle/etc. in the usual > place (top center), and piece/opus also in the usual place > (flush left and flush right just above the top system), and > the top system has no protruding skyline. Now score2 has > all the same titling but the top system has a really high > note just before the rightmost barline. > > To prevent a collision between the last note and the opus, > LilyPond will shift the first system down. Fine. But what > I've noticed in the classic scores is that in this > situation, the top system is not shifted down, but rather > the opus is shifted *up*. This is an important difference! > > It means that the placement of the top system is determined > by the bookTitleMarkup, and the scoreTitleMarkup is > determined by the top system. And it usually looks better > this way (and more consistent from score to score). I guess > I wouldn't be surprised if Joe says that this would be more > trouble than it's worth*, since it seems to go against the > whole pattern of the current spacing algorithm, but I think > it would be a big step towards fully professional-quality > scores. > > *and if he says it would be easy, well that would just make > my day... > I won't say it's more trouble than it's worth, but I don't think it's trivial. In lilypond-spacing-backend terms, I think you want to treat the opus markup as a "loose line." Cheers, Joe
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
