Landscape photography - conveying 3 dimensions in 2 dimensions

I was going to write a scathing post about a landscape photographer X Y who has written, not guidelines, nor suggestion or even a 'here's one approach', but a definitive article on landscape photograph compositions. After a google search it appears landscape photographer X Y is not the only one, who has written a definitive article(s) on composition and very generic they are too, candidates for a bullshit bingo card containing :

• Pithy quote(s) from Weston, White, Adams, Stieglitz et al
• The wistful comment on viewing an upside down image on ground glass or peering down at a Hasselblad viewfinder.
• The requirement to study the works of great artists.
• The number of books owned/read by Weston, White, Adams, Stieglitz et al
• Images illustrated with lines, curves, zig zags and arrows
• The article containing a combination of some or all of the following words - tension points, dynamic composition, perspective, convergence, asymmetric balance, leading lines, simplification, synergy, organic flow, parallelism,  extraneous, distillation ...
• Aspect ratio  
• Rule of 1/3's, Golden rule, Golden ratio 
• Link to book/workshop dates/donate button

The issue I have with definitive articles on composition is there is hardly ever a mention that the fundamental precept of a landscape image is to successfully convey 3 dimensions in 2 dimensions. I know that viewing images is subjective and some compositions may have 'subtle nuances' not appreciated at web display sizes, but there are some feted landscape photographers who have demonstrated to my eyes, a failure to translate 3 dimensional views into 2 dimensions. No amount of foreground interest, camera movements, leading lines or tension points can give depth to a two dimensional image.