On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 15:47 +0200, Alexander Kobel wrote:
On 2010-06-18 14:31, Joe Neeman wrote:
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 13:08 +0200, Alexander Kobel wrote:
(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?
For the same reason that between-system-spacing uses the center of the
staff and not the edge. The height of the footer can vary from page to
page and if we use it then the vertical spacing will not be consistent.
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.
Perhaps foot-separation by itself was simpler, but bottom-system-spacing
is consistent with all of the other new variables and we don't need two
different variables for the same thing.