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

Benjamin Franz (
Sat, 16 Aug 1997 05:14:29 -0700 (PDT)

Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 05:14:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Benjamin Franz <>
In-Reply-To: <v0310280db01a8fb259c8@[]>
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Portrait vs. Landscape (was Re: THEAD & TFOOT for columns)

On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:

> At 3:25p -0700 08/15/97, E. Stephen Mack wrote:
>  >
>  > While HTML itself does not care whether a page scrolls horizontally
>  > or vertically, the draft does seem to make the assumption that
>  > pags will be scrolled vertically.  For example, there are statements
> And there is also the matter of how we read text. Since HTML was designed
> without <table>, its constructs were geared toward text. In a mode where
> the document were to wrap vertically and scroll horizontally, how would
> one read lines of text? It just doesn't work that way (as far as humans
> reading is concerned), thus the text wraps horizontally and scrolls
> vertically. This is also the way all Word Processors behave -- the words
> are wrapped horizontally and the document scrolls vertically. This was
> not a paradigm invented just for HTML -- it's simply the way *we* read.

Unless you happen to have a language that runs some other way than
horizontal then vertical. Japanese, for example, can run top->bottom,
right->left (and often does in printed media). This would most naturally
result in a need to scroll to the *left* to read text as you extended into
the document. I haven't seen a browser that can handle that (not saying
there isn't one, just that I haven't seen one). So when you say 'the way
we read' you are limiting yourself to a particular sub-set of 'we' and
'reading'. The need for a <VR> in such a configuration is obvious.  It is
not at all clear to me how the current table model and VALIGN/ALIGN in
general would be fit into top->bottom, left-right text flow.

Benjamin Franz