I don't follow. This passage implies that this is supposed to work (except on "some old translators"), but it contradicts the bulk of the document which states that paragraphs must be followed by (actually, terminated with) a blank line.
I was indeed reading the fine manual, read it end to end several times, and cross-checked versions 10.1 and the current 12.whatever. My observation stands: the example which is implied to work as-is on current translators contradicts the description given earlier. If it's not intended to work, why explain that it must be changed for "older" parsers? If it never works at all, it's a silly thing to say.
I think I can afford the -- vote. But I think it's unwarranted, after re-reading my post.
> perldoc perlpod |grep -2n " empty "|sed 's/ / /'
489- You can embed Pod documentation in your Perl modules and scripts
490: Start your documentation with an empty line, a "=head1" command
491: beginning, and end it with a "=cut" command and an empty line.
492- will ignore the Pod text. See any of the supplied library modul
493- examples. If you’re going to put your Pod at the end of the fil
501- Time::Local - efficiently compute time from local and GMT time
503: Without that empty line before the "=head1", many translators wo
504- have recognized the "=head1" as starting a Pod block.
553- · Some older Pod translators require paragraphs (including com
554- paragraphs like "=head2 Functions") to be separated by compl
555: empty lines. If you have an apparently empty line with some
556- on it, this might not count as a separator for those transla
557- and that could cause odd formatting.
Right. older translators don't like that. Write it as below if you intend such older translators to be able to swallow it.
It doesn't say "POD files can't do this." It says "Many older Pod translators...". Meaning that others don't. "will make such Pod translators...fail". Not "will never work", but will make (only) those old nasty ones fail. That is, it's not backward compatible.
I don't see it meaning anything else. It's not like one of those cube pictures where it snaps into something different once you realize what was meant... it's saying that this example is not backward compatible, NOT that it's illegal.
Arguing is pointless. Clearly it is either wrong or at least capable of being misinterpreted by someone who read it carefully.