[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [docbook] marking up a play
Nic Gibson wrote: > 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).. Did you consider the other children of book? http://docbook.org/tdg5/en/html/ch02.html#ch02-physdiv Divisions, which divide books into parts Components, which divide books or divisions into chapters Sections, which subdivide components Was it just that it was the first division? > > <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). <book <play/> <play/> etc. > > 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. sect1..5 or section? I think structurally they are at the same level. So play at this level too? Makes sense. > > 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) Is <direction/> right? I don't think we need two distinct elements though? With rng we can define them and process them according to context? I'm OK with that. Better than <stagedir> Scott? (very en centric?) regards -- Dave Pawson XSLT XSL-FO FAQ. http://www.dpawson.co.uk
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]