Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.
Bug 325700 - [documentation] how to edit XML artifacts with Buckminster schema support is not documented
Summary: [documentation] how to edit XML artifacts with Buckminster schema support is ...
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: z_Archived
Classification: Eclipse Foundation
Component: Buckminster (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified   Edit
Hardware: All All
: P3 enhancement (vote)
Target Milestone: ---   Edit
Assignee: buckminster.core-inbox CLA
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2010-09-19 11:47 EDT by Wim Jongman CLA
Modified: 2019-02-25 14:40 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Wim Jongman CLA 2010-09-19 11:47:43 EDT 
Hi guys,

I am reading the buckminster book. In section "Editing RMAP" there is a last paragraph stating the following:

to help you with automatic code completion, validation, and valid attribute values (see the section
called “Configuring Eclipse for XML Editing”).

This section exists, but says nothing about how to configure Eclipse for XML Editing.
Comment 1 Henrik Lindberg CLA 2010-09-20 12:57:24 EDT 
Thanks for pointing this out. 
Over time, the importance of this has been greatly reduced as there are now EMF based editors for all artifacts. I think these should be documented instead of the more general how to edit XML artifacts with Eclipse, but I am happy to include how to do it the XML way if someone wants to document the required steps to perform XML editing supported by the Buckminster schemas.
Comment 2 Wim Jongman CLA 2010-09-21 07:46:40 EDT 
Hi Henrik,

No I agree that would not be needed. Maybe just remove the section from the document. Is this document crowd-sourced somewhere?
Comment 3 Henrik Lindberg CLA 2010-09-21 10:58:28 EDT 
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hi Henrik,
> 
> No I agree that would not be needed. Maybe just remove the section from the
> document. Is this document crowd-sourced somewhere?

Unfortunately no.