Re: Doc: Clarify automatic beam setting (2701) (issue 6452072)

[dak]

On 2012/08/04 15:11:55, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> On 2012/08/04 09:33:33, dak wrote:

> I'm sorry - I completely missed this.  Probably because
> I was hung up by the earlier sneer and didn't take in
> much else.  Since you ask, the bit that affected me was

> > A heading indented as opposed to the following main
> > paragraph shape?  Ugh, ugh, ugh.

> That was belittling my opinion (which I still hold)
> in a rather nasty way.

It was not at all intended personally.  It expressed my rather strong
disapproval with the typesettings aethetics of a construct that looks
like the following.

    *This is supposed to be a heading*

    And this is supposed to be the text following the heading.  Note
that there is no spacing other than the normal paragraph spacing both
before and after that paragraph.

*Now this is a heading*

And as opposed to the above, it does not look like a normally occuring
paragraph, but has some markup that fits its function of separating a
new sequence of paragraphs.  And it does not break completely out the
otherwise consistent formatting of header material.

I don't expect everybody to be a typographer (my last freelance job
before LilyPond was in the area of book design and automated
typesetting, and actually so was my last regular job as well).  That
"Ugh, ugh, ugh" was not expressing my opinion of you, but rather of how
the proposed layout appealed to my sense of aethetics.

It is possible to make an indented book design, though quite challenging
to bring of consistently.  But it does not belong in the middle of
material formatted with different conventions.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6452072/