Earlier this week, I was looking for information on a module on search.cpan.org. While reading through the module's documentation, there were several related modules mentioned, but the links referred to the module on metacpan.org.
Curious, I viewed the module's POD, and found they had used L<text|url> POD linking syntax. When I later viewed the POD of a few other modules that referred (linked) to other modules in a way I expected, I found those modules using the L<module> / L<module/section> / L<text|module> / L<text|module/section> syntax.
To me, this violated the Principle of Least Astonishment (Surprise), but I can see a scenario where the author may not have noticed the issue, such as if (for instance) they use metacpan.org as their preferred interface for finding modules on CPAN. I considered contacting the module's author regarding the linking, but before I potentially made (more of) a fool of myself (than normal) by doing so (and because I am still (at best) a novice with respect to POD), I wanted a "second opinion" (as it were). So, my question is:
Is there a "standard" manner for linking to other modules within CPAN I should recommend, or should I just ignore it as being my issue, not an actual problem worthy of disturbing the author?
My thanks in advance for your shared wisdom and consideration.
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |