[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 3619 in lilypond: Patch: Make markup commands
From: |
lilypond |
Subject: |
Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 3619 in lilypond: Patch: Make markup commands \super and \sub produce correct placement |
Date: |
Mon, 21 Oct 2013 08:31:44 +0000 |
Comment #5 on issue 3619 by address@hidden: Patch: Make markup commands \super
and \sub produce correct placement
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3619
Regarding comment #3: we have _several_ functions for formatting
chordnames. In my opinion, most of them suck visually, and in particular
the definitions can't deal with changes of font-size. But as long as the
functions use super/sub, one can't change the latter without reviewing the
effects on the former.
The C7 superscript clearly is too low for comfort: it's lower than a
mathematician would place it (though it may be acceptable in chemistry).
If we take a look at the output from the following plain TeX file (which is
more or less the reference for Knuth style maths):
$${\rm C}^7$$
${\rm C}^7$
\end
we'll see two different positions for the superscript. The first is for
display math, the second is for inline math and is consequently a "cramped"
style aiming not to cause overtall lines.
LilyPond is not primarily concerned with inline typesetting, so I don't
think we need a cramped style (one possible exception is the positioning of
footnote anchors in top-level markup, but I doubt we need to make amends
for that).
So in my opinion, the proposed styles look too cramped. When taking a leaf
from TeX, one should rather refer to display math super/subscript
positioning. This will admittedly make chemical formulae take more
vertical space than typical PhD theses grant them, but that's not the
primary focus of LilyPond.
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings