Re: [docbook] marking up a play

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

2008/10/29 Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>:
> Hudson, Scott wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the feedback. Now, what to call it? drama? (what if it's a
>> comedy?) play? script?
>
> <drama> which is the general definition as per dictionary. role attribute
> available if needed.
>
>
>>
>> I think the part level sounds intriguing, section makes sense. Both?
>> Preference?
>
> Confusion? With current docbook part? What semantics did you have?
> Or did you mean to have 'drama' at the same docbook hiearchical level as
> part?
>
> I'd seek advice on this one. Norm?
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> What are you proposing?
> personae (sp?) is a needed wrapper?
>
> Nothing at http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/PublishersMinimalElements  that
> strikes me as clear for
> <cast>
> <role>
> <name>Othello</
> <para> A right tart</
> </
> </
>
> It is a bit 'peculiar' to a play Scott?
>

>
> As is stage direction, for multi para content?
>
> <para role='direction'> seems viable, but already overladen?
>
>


We added <direction> as a block level element and <inlinedirection> as
an inline element. We felt that these had enough additional semantic
value that it was worth adding. We definitely thought that they were
drama specific - they would work for screenplays as well as stage
plays I think.

cheers

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