Variation in vertical arrangements

[r12a]

5.3.1 Variations in vertical arrangements
http://w3c.github.io/ilreq/#h_vertical_arrangements_of_characters

can we say anything about what motivates a choice of split clusters in the diagram? is this intentional or just produced by problematic tooling?

if intentional, we need to modify some of the text above that asserts that segmentation of typographic units is only syllabic.

[slata]

This example shows two variation of the word in order to differentiate both correct and wrong representation of segmentation. The segmentation of the vertical arrangements should follow the Indic syllabic definition.

[lianghai]

I start to feel, that, since many special rules of Indic typographical treatments are simply "it must be per-orthographical-syllable", it'd be much more readable to have a section (or simply a table) about orthographical syllable's influence on common typographical treatments (line breaking, initial letter, tracking, etc) and only give those relatively complicated issues (say, initial letter) their own sections.

[r12a]

@lianghai I think it's helpful to have separate sections for things like letter-spacing, because it makes it easier to find the relevant information for a particular typographic feature. And besides, i think there is usually more to be said than just that the division of text is at the orthographic boundaries.

@slata

This example shows two variation of the word in order to differentiate both correct and wrong representation of segmentation. The segmentation of the vertical arrangements should follow the Indic syllabic definition.

I think the document needs to say that, and make clear which of the examples is correct and which is incorrect. Many of the people reading this document won't know.

[slata]

The changes has been made.

[r12a]

Do you have a link to the commit?

I think there are still some ambiguities and it doesn't help to use text in graphics. I submitted a PR to clean this up at #38