W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1997

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

From: Neil St.Laurent <neil@bigpic.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 09:52:46 -0600
Message-Id: <199708191547.JAA01530@underworld.bigpic.com>
To: Hakon Lie <howcome@w3.org>
CC: www-style@w3.org
> By reading other messages in this thread, I now understand that
> the terms "landscape" and "portrait" have been used to describe
> scrolling directions. I don't think this is good use of the terms, but
> at least I understand what you mean now..

Yes, I agree the choice of terms was likely not too good on my part 
-- thus I'll just use vertical/horizontal.
 
>  - in the CSS1 formatting model, block-level, non-floating elements
>    are laid out from top to bottom. 

This is the major problem with the standard I have (a separate issue 
from colunmns/pagination but requires similar introductions of 
properties).
 
> direction content is laid out, but this is not yet available. Note
> that CSS1 can equally well support right-to-left as left-to-right
> writing direction since this only changes the way content is laid out
> *within* the elements..

I just wonder about the truth and solidity behind the 
internationalization movement if the abilitiy to represent horizontal 
layouts isn't there.  Indeed I've checked and a couple of the eastern 
languages write lines top-down and work from the right to the left in 
their representation.  The current standard would thus seem to 
exclude a minimum of 20% of the world's population from using their 
native language, and also prevents historical representations of old 
languages -- such as egyptian I believe.

However, if the COLHEAD/COLFOOT issue was resolved in the HTML 
standard there is at least a temporary "hack" that can be done to 
represent those languages.
__
| Mortar: Advanced Web Development <http://bigpic.com/mortar/>
| Neil St.Laurent  neil@bigpic.com
| Big Picture Multimedia
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 1997 11:48:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:51 GMT