>> Both are OK to me. However, what I have a problem with are cases
>> where too much empty vertical space remains, which could be easily
>> filled with a chapter entry and four lower-level entries, say.
>
> I've made a change changing this dimension down to 30pt.
Thanks.
> I know you said yo
On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 06:08:37PM +, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > I am not really sure which is better. There is more in chapter 17
> > and one argument is that it is better to start a new page for
> > chapter 17's contents listing.
>
> Both are OK to me. However, what I have a problem with ar
>> Thanks, this helps: for my version of the LilyPond Notation
>> Reference a value of 10pt works just fine. Before that I tried
>> 20pt, however, I got a different but equally bad gap as reported
>> originally. This makes me wonder whether we are we really turning
>> the right screw...
>
> I tr
>> While playing around with adding parts to LilyPond's Notation
>> Reference, I got the attached layout in the ToC. As can be seen,
>> there is a vertical gap corresponding to approx. 8 lines(!) at the
>> bottom of page vi; I've never noticed such a large gap before in any
>> Texinfo document. [
On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 06:10:52AM +, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> [texinfo.tex 2025-03-22.08]
> [luatex Version 1.22.0 (TeX Live 2025), Development id: 7673]
>
>
> While playing around with adding parts to LilyPond's Notation
> Reference, I got the attached layout in the ToC. As can be seen,
> While playing around with adding parts to LilyPond's Notation
> Reference, I got the attached layout in the ToC. As can be seen,
> there is a vertical gap corresponding to approx. 8 lines(!) at the
> bottom of page vi; I've never noticed such a large gap before in any
> Texinfo document.
>
> I
