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

Walter Ian Kaye (
Sat, 16 Aug 1997 15:13:50 -0700

Message-Id: <v03102815b01bd24d1aa6@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 15:13:50 -0700
From: Walter Ian Kaye <>
Subject: Re: Portrait vs. Landscape (was Re: THEAD & TFOOT for columns)

At 5:14a -0700 08/16/97, Benjamin Franz wrote:
 > On Fri, 15 Aug 1997, Walter Ian Kaye wrote:
 > > 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'.

Well, we know Tim is not Nihonjin... ;-)  But Japanese, due to its "block"
characters, works just as well L->R/T->B as it does T->B/R->L (hey, you
could build his name from that sequence... <G>), and I would guess that
most Japanese are comfortable reading L->R/T->B.

 > 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.

It's not clear to me how, either. :-)

  Walter Ian Kaye <boo_at_best*com>    Programmer - Excel, AppleScript,
          Mountain View, CA                         ProTERM, FoxPro, HTML     Musician - Guitarist, Songwriter