RE: Re: HTML table model suggestion

Tom Magliery (
Mon, 3 Apr 95 11:34:34 EDT

> One of the things that drives me crazy about most of the WWW browsers
> that I have met so far, is their total disregard for the requirements of
> the printed page.
> I don't see that a "page" is only a piece of paper. A document on a
> screen is being presented in a page too; the header is the window title,
> the footer is a status bar, footnotes are ruled-off areas at the bottom
> of the window.
> The information should be presented in a form that suits the medium; a
> printout is NOT just a pixel dump of the screen!

With (the first part of) this statement you've eloquently begun a
counterargument to your own complaints. Viewing a document on the
screen is fundamentally different from printing it on paper.
Onscreen, a document is really just one page. Since most monitors are
not arbitrarily tall (at least not the ones we've got around NCSA ;-),
windowing is a mechanism for viewing a really tall document a bit at a
time, without the restriction that you have to take it in discrete 11"
(sorry, A4ers) chunks. Sure there's a direct analogy between the
printed-page meta-information and window meta-information, but the
higher intelligence of the onscreen display mechanism makes things

That said, there is obvious utility in being able to keep parts of the
document visible in your window while other parts move in and out.
(Table headers and footers were your example; tables of contents or
other navigation aids are others.) HTML is moving in the direction of
having more of these capabilities. (E.g., see <banner> and <link
rel=various-stuff> in the current 3.0 draft.) Browsers will follow,
especially if you hound browser-developers (politely, of course ;-).

> p.s. Are sigs un-cool or do you just all know each other?

Neither. I think it's just that some people don't bother with them.