Portrait vs. Landscape (was Re: THEAD & TFOOT for columns)
To: Peter Flynn <email@example.com>
Subject: Portrait vs. Landscape (was Re: THEAD & TFOOT for columns)
From: "Neil St.Laurent" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:00:40 -0600
CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Comments: Authenticated sender is <email@example.com>
From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri Aug 15 11: 57:39 1997
Organization: Big Picture Multimedia
X-Authentication-Warning: www10.w3.org: Host [18.104.22.168] claimed to be underworld.bigpic.com
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.32a)
> You're barking up the wrong tree. HTML wan't designed to do any kind
> of layout. That's a matter for browser and stylesheets. Nothing in
> HTML prohibits or encourages either portrait or landscape designs..
MAybe HTML 4.0 doesn't, nor does HTML in theory, but ALIGN=LEFT,
ALIGN=right, are both portrait oriented. Almost any place that has
the ALIGN attribute was strictly for portrait, very few things
have/support VALIGN to any usefulness. Consider even:
<HR>, where's <VR>?
But it is true the pure SGML (not as implemented by HTML) doesn't
prohibit a model that would allow for horizontal representation.
Style sheets, particularily CSS, gives virtually no possibility of
doing any useful layout for landscape displays.
Float, clear, properties should have TOP,BOTTOM as attributes rather
than just LEFT,RIGHT.
A lack of orphan control actually prevents CSS from being useful in
any non-continuous vertical scrolling medium (such as print or
| Mortar: Advanced Web Development <http://bigpic.com/mortar/>
| Neil St.Laurent email@example.com
| Big Picture Multimedia