Re: Portrait vs. Landscape (was Re: THEAD & TFOOT for columns)

Peter Flynn (pflynn@imbolc.ucc.ie)
16 Aug 1997 12:14:06 +0100


Date: 16 Aug 1997 12:14:06 +0100
From: Peter Flynn <pflynn@imbolc.ucc.ie>
In-reply-to: <871681145.147350.0@[194.205.134.112]> (message from Clive Bruton
To: clive@typonaut.demon.co.uk
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-id: <199708161114.MAA23638@imbolc.ucc.ie>
Subject: Re: Portrait vs. Landscape (was Re: THEAD & TFOOT for columns)

   Isn't that reason enough for inclusion?

Not really. Presentational details like this belong in a stylesheet.

   Haven't a clue here either, but I see no reason why type should not =
   be "rotatable", perhaps in increments of 90=B0.

   If multilayering makes sense then so too does angled type.

Ditto.

///Peter