Re: [docbook] marking up a play

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

2008/10/29 Dave Pawson <davep@dpawson.co.uk>:
> 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?
>

It fits our content reasonably well - that really was the primary
driving force on this one.
I'm actually fairly certain that our current schema is 'not quite right'.

>
>>
>> <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.
>

Exactly

>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>

Our schema doesn't allow sect1..5 so in my mind it was <section>. I
can only think of a couple of 'play within a play' situations (A
Midsummer Night's Dream comes to mind).  I don't think we would mark
them up as nested play elements though. So... like a section but
without the nesting I guess.

cheers

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