Dear all, when writing Marek::Pod::HTML I saw any combinations of markup in =headN and =item, and also any kind of markup in L<...> (with and without |, i.e. alternative text). This made me implement the link-resolving part of the formatter like this: Both on the source and the destination side, strip all markup and reduce the link relationship to pure text (this includes expanding E<...> to Latin-1) - then most of the hyperlinks can be established correctly. I see no point in making a difference between L</B<some section>> and L</some section>, for example - especially when linking to other POD files - you never know if that document's author will not change the formatting...
-Marek -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht----- Von: Sean M. Burke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Mai 2003 23:00 An: Ronald J Kimball; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Clarification of markup within a link At 11:34 AM 2003-05-30 -0400, Ronald J Kimball quoted Perlpodspec: >For "L<...>" codes without a "name|" part, only "E<...>" and "Z<>" >codes >may occur -- no other formatting codes. That is, authors should not use >""L<B<Foo::Bar>>"". Yes, I wrote this too narrowly -- I said For "L<...>" codes without a "name|" part but I meant For "L<url>" codes and "L<Some::Module>" codes (without a "name|" part) That note is basically a reaction to Pod::Tree's bad idea that L<C<Foo::Bar>> should mean L<C<Foo::Bar>|Foo::Bar>. >(Is L<B<Foo::Bar>> legal if it's a link to =head1 B<Foo::Bar>?) Now that you meantion it, yes it is; I hadn't been considering the L<section name> syntax (instead of L</"section name"> or L</section name> or L<"section name">). -- Sean M. Burke http://search.cpan.org/~sburke/
