Wouldn't [/] also allow the changing of the link style used if the destination changes its style. For example, if Google changed its URL for searching to something different, any link that was of the form [google://blah blah blah] could be re-formed by the page rendering code, right?
| [reply] |
For links within PM, I prefer it when people use [...]. When they write their own <a href... tags, they almost invariably do not use a relative URL but some form of absolute URL back to PM. Since PM is available at more than one host name, that is usually different from the domain for one person's login cookie or another. The shortcuts remove that concern.
Part of that issue could be mitigated by scoping the cookies to the second-level domains rather than the hostnames. That would solve www.permonks.tld vs. perlmonks.tld as I discussed with jdporter last week in the CB. It wouldn't help any with the fact that perlmonks.org, perlmonks.net and perlmonks.com are all the same site, though. The shortcuts handle that just fine. | [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Well, one doesn't need to use [ ], but one certainly does need to know about them. Considering that [ ] is dead common in Perl code, one does have to know about this unfortunate choice of alternative link markup. | [reply] |