Code
An inline code span you can put a variable inside.
{% code %}{% $row.name %}{% /code %}
Use backticks unless the content is dynamic
For static code, backticks are still correct and always will be:
Set `href` to make the card clickable.
Reach for this rune only when what goes inside is a variable — a {% data %} row value, a binding passed to an {% include %}. Exactly as **bold** stays correct for static emphasis.
Why backticks can't do it
A code span is literal by definition. Everything between the backticks is text, so Markdoc syntax inside one is never parsed:
`{% $row.name %}` → <code>{% $row.name %}</code>
That is standard Markdown, not a refrakt quirk — and it is the only inline construct with this property. Everything else passes a variable through intact:
| Authored | Renders |
|---|---|
[{% $row.name %}](/runes/card) | a link labelled href |
[**{% $row.name %}**](…) | bold inside a link |
**_{% $row.name %}_** | nested emphasis |
{% badge %}{% $row.name %}{% /badge %} | a badge reading href |
`{% $row.name %}` | the literal text {% $row.name %} |
So this rune exists to close one specific gap, not to offer a second spelling for something Markdown already does well.
In a table cell
The case it was built for — a generated reference table whose first column is an attribute name:
{% data src="_data/rune-attributes.json" root="attributes" where=$own
headers="Attribute, Type, Required, Description" %}
{% code %}{% $row.name %}{% /code %}
---
{% $row.type %}
---
{% if $row.required %}✓{% else /%}—{% /if %}
---
{% $row.description %}
{% /data %}
See data for the headers attribute.
Output
The same element a backtick span produces, plus the usual rune markers:
<code class="rf-code" data-rune="code">href</code>
The element is the point: Lumina styles code with an element rule, so a paragraph mixing a backtick span and this rune looks uniform without either needing to know about the other. .rf-code is there for a theme that wants to tell them apart — it is not required for the default styling.
Attributes
None.