Eclipse Community Forums: Platform - User Assistance (UA) » Please confirm allowable link_to path structures using PLUGINS

Home » Eclipse Projects » Platform - User Assistance (UA) » Please confirm allowable link_to path structures using PLUGINS_ROOT

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator

Please confirm allowable link_to path structures using PLUGINS_ROOT [message #475569]

Tue, 26 May 2009 15:37

Lee Anne Kowalski

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

Report message to a moderator

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

Chris Goldthorpe

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.

Report message to a moderator

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

Lee Anne Kowalski

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.
>

Report message to a moderator