[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: non-technical help for spacing issues

From: Keith E OHara
Subject: Re: non-technical help for spacing issues
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:19:27 -0700
User-agent: Opera Mail/10.63 (Win32)

On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:24:33 -0700, Graham Percival <address@hidden> wrote:

>On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:47:01 -0700, Graham wrote:
>This is directed at people saying "I can't do anything to help..."

I need a committing, not necessarily committed, partner to close this.

I attach a patch corresponding to the style-sheets I just posted over on -user 
( -- 
which are a lot simpler than they were two weeks ago.

1) The paper-defaults changes are for stretchability between systems, and at 
the bottom of a flush-bottom page.

1a) With this change, ragged-bottom=#f will leave a bit of stretch at the 
bottom to give reasonable results for scores, while it still pulls the last 
staff to the bottom of the page for single-staff parts.
The 2.13 default spacing is shown as a small image at 
( while 
the proposed spacing is at 

1b) Putting relatively more vertical space between systems, or between 
staff-groups, is good for readability.  I transferred the extra stiffening of 
the piano-staff, which Joe did a year ago, to everything spaced with 

1c) GrandStaff does not currently get StaffGrouper spacing by default.  The 
docs say that Piano Staff (which had and obviously wants StaffGrouper spacing) 
is just like GrandStaff, so I gave GrandStaff a topLevelAlignment of #f, the 
same as the other staff groups.

2a) Lyrics get less space in the new system, but all the choral-music folk seem 
to want is a but a touch more padding from Lyrics to any non-associated grobs 
on the next staff.

2b) The separation between Lyrics and its associated staff should be a 'rod' 
instead of a spring, or else the last line of Lyrics can get squished into its 
staff (image).

Graham, your original wish did not get fulfilled.
   Tweaking parameters *could* reduced issue 1290 to the same severity as it 
had with version 2.12.3, but I could find no support for that step -- and do 
not recommend it myself. (Details are in the tracker the issue 1290 thread on 

   Given that later discussion makes it seem like an enhancement request, and 
not a release-blocking issue, could the bug-meister please review 1290 ?


Description: Binary data

Description: Binary data

Attachment: define-grobs.scm.diff
Description: Binary data

Attachment: LyricsSquished.png
Description: PNG image

reply via email to

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