On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Paul Merlin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2011-02-10 22.36, Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> > * {@link} and similar don't work (of course since that is a Javadoc
>> > thingy).
> Could there be a way to deep link into javadocs using something specific to
> SiteVision ?
> Maybe if we use only fully qualified class names and limit ourselves to
> {@link}
> it would be possible to write a xslt for that ?
I am not an XSLT expert, but I would suspect that search/replace for
text with regular expression is not among its strengths and I don't
see that really work.
> That way links could work in
> both javadocs and the website. I'm just guessing as I don't know SiteVision.
I am kind of leaning towards; "Don't bother with this at the moment",
as it is only for the top-level package html that needs to be free of
these javadoc specifics. Once we have figured out how the javadocs are
published, I guess we can pick up the javadoc generated content for
the 'versioned' pages and live with literal "{@link }" in the
'develop' version.
Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java
I live here; http://tinyurl.com/3xugrbk
I work here; http://tinyurl.com/24svnvk
I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
