Hi Marc,
IIRC C<> stands for code, which means for renderers to set the included ext in a fixed-width font (courier-like). It is by no means a hyperlink. I know that some POD tools tried to apply some artificial intelligence to check whether text in B<> or C<> or I<> could be a reference to a manpage, a =headn section or an =item, but the results are often awkward. Therefore, if I may throw in my 2c, I suggest to stick with the perlpodspec definition: hyperlink destinations are the texts of =headn and =item (stripping all potentially included markup like C<> B<> I<>), and the only way to reference these is L</text> or L<page/text>. Examples: C<grep /string/> - this is just highlighting the text in typewriter font =item grep /string/ ð This is a hyperlink destination (and a list item, of course) =item B<grep> I</string> ð This is basically the same hyperlink destination (same text content) L</grep /string/> - this is the hyperlink to the above item -Marek Von: Marc Green [mailto:pongu...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Samstag, 21. Mai 2011 19:55 An: Karl Williamson Cc: pod-people@perl.org; tchr...@perl.com Betreff: Re: Pod::Html's cross referencing of C<> links On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Karl Williamson <pub...@khwilliamson.com> wrote: Perhaps what is meant in the comments is that you can't use L<> to link to most =item's. If you need to refer to one, perhaps you should use C<> markup to distinguish it from regular text. But the C<> would be a verbal reference and not a clickable link. Ah, I think you are right. Thanks for clarifying. I don't know when the specification changed, but after another read of the current perlpodspec <http://perldoc.perl.org/perlpodspec.html#About-L%3C...%3E-Codes> , I have an answer: Previous versions of perlpod distinguished L<name/"section"> links from L<name/item> links (and their targets). These have been merged syntactically and semantically in the current specification, and section can refer either to a "=headn Heading Content" command or to a "=item Item Content" command. Well, it is not an answer to my original question, but it helps me make the executive decision to consider "C<> links" as L<> links. Thanks for the help, Marc
