How to launch context-sensitive WebHelp

[Guest]

Hi,
We have created a WebHelp project that uses MapIds.
From our C# app, our developers have created a htm file that uses the RoboHelp_CSH.js function of ShowHelp to launch the contextual htm file within the WebHelp window.
So the call from our app launches a htm file that in turn opens the WebHelp project, so users would have two browser windows open.
We dont want two browser windows open, and would like to know if there is any way we can have the WebHelp project opening in the htm file that is called from the C# app?

We don't want to use alias files and would like to use Map Ids.

[MergeThis]

They don't need no stinkin' MapId's; they only have to call a URL in C#,

For example, the MainUserFrm window calls your MainUserFrm.htm topic.


Good luck,
Leon

[MergeThis]

Forgot to mention: they have to make the call through your project's Start Page, to get the multi-pane view.

[Guest]

Hi Leon,
Thanks for replying. We do know it is possible to call our the help topic contextually thru the start page using the URL in C#.
The problem is we don't want go the Map ID way. Any other solution would be helpful.

[Guest]

oops..! I mis--communicated that.. the problem is we do want to go the Map Id way..
😞

[MergeThis]

What's up with this "htm file that uses the RoboHelp_CSH.js function of ShowHelp to launch the contextual htm file within the WebHelp window. So the call from our app launches a htm file that in turn opens the WebHelp project"?

Sounds like your developers have painted themselves into a corner, and don't know how to extricate themselves. You all understand that someone, you or a developer, has to continually update the header file that contains those Map ID's, right? How is that better than simply adding/deleting/modifying an occasional topic name to reflect the application changes?

I hope someone can make them realize, sooner rather than later for your sake, that their imaginary finery is revealing their shortcomings!


Good luck,
Leon

[Guest]

Thanks Leon! Appreciate you taking the time to respond. Yes, you are right, we will get ourselves into a maintennance nightmare. I will suggest that we go the filename way as u have mentioned.