2008/10/29 Hudson, Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 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/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
