[pmwiki-users] Bug in ftime?

[Patrick R. Michaud]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 11:12:23AM -0400, The Editor wrote:
> On 4/26/07, Patrick R. Michaud <pmichaud at pobox.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:46:23AM -0400, The Editor wrote:
> >> I understood
> >>
> >> {(ftime '<timestamp>' '<format>')} should output what is desired.
> >>
> >> However on the Main.WikiSandbox I'm getting
> >>
> >> December 31, 1969, at 05:59 PM
> 
> [...] I recreated the bug at http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Test/Ftime

Ah, now I see.  By '<timestamp>' you meant a unix time value
(I didn't catch that earlier).

The {(ftime ...)} markup wants timestamps to be marked
with a leading @-sign, to better distinguish them from 
other date formats (e.g., yyyymmdd).  Using the leading
@-sign for timestamps isn't something I invented out of 
thin air -- it's also used by the GNU date input formats [1], 
which is what PHP's strtotime() function claims to follow [2].

[1] http://www.gnu.org/software/tar/manual/html_node/tar_117.html#SEC117
[2] http://www.php.net/strtotime


So, you really want:

    {(ftime @timestamp '<format>')}

Pm