Re: attachment points for vertical spacing dimensions

[Alexander Kobel]

On 2010-10-05 21:53, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> On 10/5/10 12:09 PM, "Mark Polesky"<address@hidden>  wrote:
> > Of the three, bottom-system-spacing is slightly more
> > complicated, since it currently controls the spacing below
> > systems *and* markups, when either is the last on a page.
> > So the natural attachment point for systems would remain the
> > same, but would be shifted to the lowest Y-coordinate for
> > markups (ideally).
>
> Again, I like the name last-item-spacing, which would apply to whatever is
> the final layout item and the bottom margin.
>
> Again, with proper understanding of padding, I think everything works
> properly.
>
> As I now understand things, I think that I would be unlikely to use
> minimum-distance for anything.  I think I'd just use space and padding.

I regularly use 'minimum-distance and a large negative 'padding in 
bottom-system-spacing to align the last staves to the same Y-offset, 
regardless of single note descenders or similar.
Also, this is a case where I actually wish the "reference point" of the 
markup were on the opposite side, i.e. the bottom of the markup (or top 
of the bottom margin), s.t. any copyright or tagline really stays inside 
the footer and does not destroy the alignment of the staves on the page. 
 That'd amount to introducing a new last-staff-to-bottom-margin-spacing 
and leaving bottom-system-spacing as is, or - functionally equivalent, 
but somehow irritatingly - shifting the attachment point of 
bottom-system-spacing to the bottom of the markup and adding 
last-staff-to-top-of-markup-spacing.

> > Personally, I think we should add a new variable to control
> > the spacing between a markup and the bottom margin.  We
> > could call it bottom-markup-spacing for now

@ Mark: is the latter what you meant with your idea from above?


Cheers,
Alexander