Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » Eclipse Projects » Platform - User Assistance (UA) » Please confirm allowable link_to path structures using PLUGINS_ROOT
Please confirm allowable link_to path structures using PLUGINS_ROOT [message #475569] Tue, 26 May 2009 15:37 Go to next message
Lee Anne Kowalski is currently offline Lee Anne KowalskiFriend
Messages: 54
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hello,

Would someone on the Eclipse UA team please confirm which of the
following are supposed to work when specified in the link_to attribute?
And which one you would consider is a "best practice"?

Given a doc plug-in with:
pluginID = edition1_1
toc file = edition1_1.xml
anchorID in edition1_1.xml = comps

Trying to anchor into that anchorID using link_to, I see the following
behaviors:

link_to="/../edition1_1/edition1_1.xml#comps Works in Eclipse 3.4.1

link_to="/edition1_1/edition1_1.xml#comps Works


link_to="../edition1_1/edition1_1.xml#comps Works (this is also
in the help doc example in ua_help_content_nested.htm topic)

link_to="PLUGINS_ROOT/edition1_1/edition1_1.xml#comps Works

link_to="/PLUGINS_ROOT/edition1_1/edition1_1.xml#comps Does Not work

Now, the help topic on Content Extensions
( http://help.eclipse.org/ganymede/index.jsp?topic=/org.eclips e.platform.doc.isv/guide/ua_dynamic_extensions.htm)
says that the format of the 'path" attribute is:
/pluginID/path/file.xml#elementID

So, is it a bug that link_to="/PLUGINS_ROOT/<pluginID>/<tocfile>#anchorID"
does not work?

Or is PLUGINS_ROOT not useful for contributing into an anchor?

Is the best practice to use the path attribute format? For example:
link_to="/pluginID/path/file.xml#anchorID"

Thanks in advance!
--Lee Anne
Re: Please confirm allowable link_to path structures using PLUGINS_ROOT [message #475603 is a reply to message #475569] Wed, 27 May 2009 22:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Chris Goldthorpe is currently offline Chris GoldthorpeFriend
Messages: 815
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
> So, is it a bug that
link_to="/PLUGINS_ROOT/<pluginID>/<tocfile>#anchorID"
> does not work?
>
> Or is PLUGINS_ROOT not useful for contributing into an anchor?

It really is not necessary to specify PLUGINS_ROOT when contributing to
an anchor. The support for PLUGINS_ROOT is only there to allow the TOC
contributions to use the same format as is used for hrefs. I suppose
that if we are going to support PLUGINS_ROOT we should also support
/PLUGINS_ROOT and you could file a bug on that.
Thanks! (was Re: Please confirm allowable link_to path structures using PLUGINS_ROOT [message #475606 is a reply to message #475603] Fri, 29 May 2009 20:38 Go to previous message
Lee Anne Kowalski is currently offline Lee Anne KowalskiFriend
Messages: 54
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hi Chris,

Thanks for that confirmation about anchor contributions and PLUGINS_ROOT.

I was using a tool that kept inserting a slash into the path that I
typed for my link_to, and that was messing things up when I included
PLUGINS_ROOT in the path, and I could't figure out why having that slash
made such a difference in that case. :-)

Thanks again!
--Lee Anne


Chris Goldthorpe wrote:
> > So, is it a bug that
> link_to="/PLUGINS_ROOT/<pluginID>/<tocfile>#anchorID"
> > does not work?
> >
> > Or is PLUGINS_ROOT not useful for contributing into an anchor?
>
> It really is not necessary to specify PLUGINS_ROOT when contributing to
> an anchor. The support for PLUGINS_ROOT is only there to allow the TOC
> contributions to use the same format as is used for hrefs. I suppose
> that if we are going to support PLUGINS_ROOT we should also support
> /PLUGINS_ROOT and you could file a bug on that.
>
Re: Please confirm allowable link_to path structures using PLUGINS_ROOT [message #623378 is a reply to message #475569] Wed, 27 May 2009 22:59 Go to previous message
Chris Goldthorpe is currently offline Chris GoldthorpeFriend
Messages: 815
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
> So, is it a bug that
link_to="/PLUGINS_ROOT/<pluginID>/<tocfile>#anchorID"
> does not work?
>
> Or is PLUGINS_ROOT not useful for contributing into an anchor?

It really is not necessary to specify PLUGINS_ROOT when contributing to
an anchor. The support for PLUGINS_ROOT is only there to allow the TOC
contributions to use the same format as is used for hrefs. I suppose
that if we are going to support PLUGINS_ROOT we should also support
/PLUGINS_ROOT and you could file a bug on that.
Thanks! (was Re: Please confirm allowable link_to path structures using PLUGINS_ROOT [message #623380 is a reply to message #475603] Fri, 29 May 2009 20:38 Go to previous message
Lee Anne Kowalski is currently offline Lee Anne KowalskiFriend
Messages: 54
Registered: July 2009
Member
Hi Chris,

Thanks for that confirmation about anchor contributions and PLUGINS_ROOT.

I was using a tool that kept inserting a slash into the path that I
typed for my link_to, and that was messing things up when I included
PLUGINS_ROOT in the path, and I could't figure out why having that slash
made such a difference in that case. :-)

Thanks again!
--Lee Anne


Chris Goldthorpe wrote:
> > So, is it a bug that
> link_to="/PLUGINS_ROOT/<pluginID>/<tocfile>#anchorID"
> > does not work?
> >
> > Or is PLUGINS_ROOT not useful for contributing into an anchor?
>
> It really is not necessary to specify PLUGINS_ROOT when contributing to
> an anchor. The support for PLUGINS_ROOT is only there to allow the TOC
> contributions to use the same format as is used for hrefs. I suppose
> that if we are going to support PLUGINS_ROOT we should also support
> /PLUGINS_ROOT and you could file a bug on that.
>
Previous Topic:Please confirm allowable link_to path structures using PLUGINS_ROOT
Next Topic:Link to a file outside the plugins folder
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Nov 28 23:06:12 GMT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.01914 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.2.
Copyright ©2001-2010 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software