Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

This-topic fragment IDs not resolved correctly in conreffed content #2284

Closed
drmacro opened this issue Mar 31, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

This-topic fragment IDs not resolved correctly in conreffed content #2284

drmacro opened this issue Mar 31, 2016 · 4 comments
Labels
dita standard Something does not comply with DITA specification DITA 1.3 Related to specification feature added in DITA 1.3 preprocess/conref stale No recent activity. May be closed soon.

Comments

@drmacro
Copy link
Member

drmacro commented Mar 31, 2016

Using this test case: https://github.com/dita-community/dita-test-cases/tree/master/this-topic-fragment-ids

With the 2.2.3 release I get the following results:

HTML: this-topic fragment IDs within conreffed elements are not resolved correctly. It looks like they are being resolved to the element as it would exist in the HTML produced from its containing topic, rather than to the element as it would be in the HTML for the referencing topic.

The references are resolved correctly when the topic containing the this-topic reference is processed directly.

PDF: Same result: references within conreffed elements are not resolved, same reference is resolved when processed directly.

dita-ot-logs.zip

@shaneataylor
Copy link
Contributor

I see the same failure in 2.2.4. Some additional detail:

In source.dita:

<step id="click_integrate">
  <cmd>Click <uicontrol><text conref="#./lti_text"/> integration</uicontrol>.</cmd>
</step>

In context.dita:

...
<text id="lti_text">Canvas</text>
...
<step conref="source.dita#source/click_integrate"><cmd/></step>
  • If a target for the lti_text conref can be found in source.dita, it is used and no error is thrown
  • Otherwise, the lti_text conref is not resolved and an error is thrown

Both of these behaviors are incorrect.

Per the specification:

processors MUST resolve it relative to the location of the content reference (referencing context)

This is not happening.

@robander robander added dita standard Something does not comply with DITA specification DITA 1.3 Related to specification feature added in DITA 1.3 preprocess/conref labels May 6, 2016
@raducoravu
Copy link
Member

raducoravu commented Apr 12, 2018

+1 Our client encountered the same problem here:

https://www.oxygenxml.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=11595&p=46237#p46237

Attached sample project:
self-link-to-step.zip

Tested with DITA OT 3.0.3

@drmacro
Copy link
Member Author

drmacro commented Feb 7, 2019

I added a new test case to the test set here: https://github.com/dita-community/dita-test-cases/tree/master/this-topic-fragment-ids and rested with OT 3.2.1

Test case 2, a link from inside the conref to a location outside the conref works, but the other two cases fail.

It looks like test cases 1 and 3, almost work but the generated IDs are not identical between the link and the IDs on the target elements (although they are similar).

Not sure what code is involved but from the nature of the failure it looks like it is probably not too hard to fix (looks like generate-id() is being used in one context and not in the other).

@stale
Copy link

stale bot commented Jun 4, 2021

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not been updated recently. It will be closed soon if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

@stale stale bot added the stale No recent activity. May be closed soon. label Jun 4, 2021
@stale stale bot closed this as completed Jun 26, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
dita standard Something does not comply with DITA specification DITA 1.3 Related to specification feature added in DITA 1.3 preprocess/conref stale No recent activity. May be closed soon.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants