Re: [docbook] marking up a play

["Nic Gibson" <nicg@corbas.net>]

2008/10/29 Hudson, Scott <Scott.Hudson@flatironssolutions.com>:
> Thanks for the feedback. Now, what to call it? drama? (what if it's a comedy?) play? script?
>
> I think the part level sounds intriguing, section makes sense. Both? Preference?

I think this depends on the intended usage! For example, we mark up
the Penguin Shakespeare (for various reasons we have done from print
materials - it was painful). Now, that has an introduction from the
editor a chronology (we use glossaries to mark those up), the play
itself and a large appendix of notes. We mark up that as something
like:

<book>
  <preface><!--- the intro --></preface>
  <glossary><!-- the chronology --></preface>
  <part><!-- act 1--->
     <chapter><!-- scene 1 --></chapter>
     ....
  </part>
  ....
  <appendix><!-- the notes --></appendix>
</book>

We have given serious consideration to using a play element at part
level to contain the text itself (and either allow it to contain
chapters for acts or create an act element)..

<book>
  <preface><!--- the intro --></preface>
  <glossary><!-- the chronology --></preface>
  <play>
     <act><!-- act 1---></act>
     ....
  </play>
  ....
  <appendix><!-- the notes --></appendix>
</book>

This would work nicely when we are marking up something like the
Tennessee Williams collections we publish (five plays in one book).

However, were we to want to produce a book about drama containing
extracts of arbitrary size we might well want to be able to mark them
up at section level as well.

Now, I know that I've used <play> through this but I like 'drama' much
more (possibly with a class attribute).

>
> Any additional markup needed to support it? We intentionally left out dramatis personae and stagedir, as other markup could be used for the same purpose.

We added those (direction, inlinedirection)

nic
-- 
Nic Gibson
Director, Corbas Consulting
Editorial and Technical Consultancy
http://www.corbas.co.uk/