Re: [perl #95784] [PATCH] Let X<> within anchorifiable paragraphs be additional anchors.

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 05:34:22PM -0400, Rocco Caputo wrote:

> Cc: [email protected] ... trying to segue the discussion into that list.

To that same end, I've removed p5p from this reply.

> It's legal and encouraged for the same index term to reference multiple points in the broader text.  Indexes have always done this.  This example from _TeXbook_ links "indexes" to four anchors in the book:
> 
>   indexes, 261-263, 392-394, 423-425, 481
> 
> Unfortunately hypertext doesn't support ambiguous link targets.  New syntax for anchors doesn't solve this problem.  It only pushes renderer-specific concerns into POD where they don't belong.
> 
> X<foo> can and should become an anchor wherever it's present.  L<foo> can and should link to ALL of them.  The anchors' actual names are unimportant implementation details, as long as X<> and L<> do the right things.
> 
> When we read books, we resolve ambiguous references by visiting the index and branching.  We often take multiple branches until our curiosities are satisfied.  And we benefit from incidental, serendipitous context while we're there.
> 
> The obvious solution to ambiguous L<foo> is to emulate books.  If we know L<foo> is ambiguous, then we already have a list of link targets.  Send the reader to that list, and let them branch out from there.
> 
> A sufficiently advanced renderer could pop up a menu of options on link click, but again, people writing POD shouldn't need new syntax to make it happen.
> 

I can definitely see the usefulness of a link that leads to all the indexed
entries for a particular term.  However, I'm not convinced this should
replace the current behavior for L<>.  There's a difference between
something that IS foo, and something that is RELATED TO foo.  Sometimes
when using an index I want to follow the multiple branches, but other times
I just want the main entry.

Right now, L<> links to the main entry for a term (specifically, in cases
where X<> is added to the main entry as a convenient link target, as well
as to related entries).  Under your proposal, it would link to all the
entries for a term.  These are both useful; I just hesitate to add the
latter at the cost of the former.

Maybe there's a good way to allow both behaviors?

Ronald