Re^2: More robust link finding than HTML::LinkExtor/HTML::Parser?

...because it isn't an HTML link.

I just called it a "link", meaning something that links to another file. Is there is a more appropriate name to call it when it appears in something other than an HTML tag?

Comment on Re^2: More robust link finding than HTML::LinkExtor/HTML::Parser?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: More robust link finding than HTML::LinkExtor/HTML::Parser? by ww (Archbishop) on May 08, 2011 at 03:06 UTC
I think the problem is context. Yes, you called it simply "a link" but you did so in the context of purported failures by two HTML-oriented modules. Just as you probably wouldn't want to use a fishing net to dig potatoes, the links for which those modules fish are HTML links; rooting around in javascript or styling links with CSS requires a different tool. I am unaware of any alternate name or word; I think the solution is to be cautious on your context.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: More robust link finding than HTML::LinkExtor/HTML::Parser?
by ww (Archbishop) on May 08, 2011 at 03:06 UTC

but

HTML-oriented

Just as you probably wouldn't want to use a fishing net to dig potatoes, the links for which those modules fish are HTML links; rooting around in javascript or styling links with CSS requires a different tool.

I am unaware of any alternate name or word; I think the solution is to be cautious on your context.

[reply]