[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Vertical spacing regression !?

From: Boris Shingarov
Subject: Re: Vertical spacing regression !?
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 06:34:02 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100423 Thunderbird/3.0.4

On 06/27/2010 01:25 PM, Joe Neeman wrote:
On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 06:56 -0400, Boris Shingarov wrote:

> This was discussed on this list only a few weeks ago. I think we are on
> our way to get rid of global page*line breaking.

Although I am happy to have an option to do full line-breaking before
page-breaking, I am very much against getting rid of the line and
page-breaking interaction. For example, if we did that then we would
have to scrap the new vertical layout since it relies on being able to
stretch the systems after the pages are determined. And while I have a
personal bias against scrapping the vertical layout (since I wrote it),
I do think that it is a big improvement over the previous layout
algorithm and I have heard comments to that effect on the lists too.
Also, the page-turn-breaker can't function without some interaction
between line- and page-breaking.
I understand the bad effects of divorcing line- from page-breaking. Another one (of those which I personally care about) is that it will negate the window/orphan handling feature I added. At least to my users, this is important. And yes, I do agree that the new layout algorithm *is* a big improvement over the previous one.

But what do we do about the height estimation problems? No matter how important the positive effects of line/page-breaking interaction are, a score with staves cut at the bottom, is unusable. And a score with the opposite problem, is equally unusable. Can we realistically hope to fix enough bugs so that real publications will look usable? I don't know. I started working on the estimations because the user's book suffered the problem. I fixed five, and pulled your fixes for a few. And yet the book is still suffering the same problem. I know what causes it *now*, but I do not know if this is going to be the last one *for this book*, and I am now facing problems of customer value when talking about fixing height estimation bugs.

So what are we going to do, keep fixing these bugs, under the theory that there is only finite number of them? One thing that makes me nervous is that a lot of the time the fixes involve increase of computational complexity. We are moving from simple height estimation to more and more complex height estimation; can it be that as we approach being more and more correct in our estimation, the complexity also approaches that of full layout?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]