Re: (2.13.x) bottom-system-spacing

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2010-06-18 14:31, Joe Neeman wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 13:08 +0200, Alexander Kobel wrote:
> > From the docs (NR 4.1.2), bottom-system-spacing should specify the
> > spacing to the top of the bottom margin.  From my experiments however,
> > it seems that only minimum-distance behaves this way, while padding
> > relates to the top of the /footer/ instead.
>
> padding, in general, controls the amount of whitespace that must be
> present. [...]As far as I can
> see, this is consistent with the way that all the spacing variables
> work.

That's clear...

> (even though the other bottom-system-spacing variables
> refer to the middle line of the bottom staff and the top of the bottom
> margin)

... but this is where I see the inconsistency - why not the top of the 
footer?  But I may be completely wrong, since minimum-distance does not 
consider the extents of staves (or markups like footer?) at all, AFAICS.
(Besides, I guess the difference only is visible for obscure hacks, 
since usually padding will dominate minimum-distance.)

> > By the way, is it correct and desired that foot-separation does not
> > exist anymore?
>
> I did intend to remove it, yes. Is there some important functionality
> that can't be obtained without it?

No, I think it's functionally equivalent.  IIUC, you can increase the 
bottom-system-spacing 'padding by the amount of desired foot-separation, 
scaled to staff spaces?
It's just that foot-separation is a much simpler variable for the common 
user to set than bottom-system-spacing, and it looks easier for backward 
compatibility.  Not that there is backward compatibility, though, since 
vertical spacing changed so much for the good.


Thanks,
Alexander