Dear list,
I'm encoding a printed drama from the 18th century and have two 
(presumably simple) questions about encoding practices of <castList>s.

First: The play I'm marking up has several castlists of different scope: 
one for actors, one for dancers, one for singers etc. - Would you 
recommend to encode them as <list>s with @types (which seems a bit too 
generic to me) or does it seem more appropriate to add <castList> to 
att.typed? One could even look at the whole series of lists as 
<castGroup>s inside one huge <castList> (adding castGroup to att.typed) 
… Any thoughts on where to draw the line?

Second: How are you handling the assignment of xml:ids / @who-values in 
cases when there are one or more speaking members of a group of unnamed 
roles, e.g.

<castItem type="list">
	<roleDesc xml:id="const">Constables,</roleDesc>
	<roleDesc>Drawer,</roleDesc>
	<roleDesc>Turnkey,</roleDesc>
  	etc.
</castItem>

<sp>
	<speaker>1st constable</speaker>
	<p>Speaking for the whole bunch of us, …</p>
</sp>

The most simple solution seems putting @xml:ids on the <roleDesc>s and 
referring to them from @who-Attribute on the character speeches.

	<sp who="#const"><speaker>1st Constable</speaker>…</sp>

But then this seems to imply a chorus' speech, doesn't it?

Actually the <roleDesc>s are describing groups of unnamed characters, so 
what about marking them up as <castGroup>s? This would also allow me to 
point from @who to a single, special group member:

<castItem type="list">
    <castGroup>
       <roleDesc>Constables</roleDesc>
       <castItem rend="hidden" type="unnamed">
           <roleDesc>1st Constable</roleDesc>
       </castItem>
       …
    </castGroup>,
     …
</castItem>

Yet, <castGroup>s are not allowed inside of <castItem>s, of course…

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here … Any hints are very much 
appreciated!

Daniel Schopper