Nic Gibson wrote:
> 2008/10/29 Hudson, Scott <>:
>> 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
