Hannes Magnusson wrote:
On 4/9/07, Maciek Sokolewicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
tularis Mon Apr 9 13:24:35 2007 UTC
Modified files:
/phpdoc/en/reference/datetime/functions strtotime.xml
Log:
fix typo in section about 2-digit interpretation (usernote)
http://cvs.php.net/viewvc.cgi/phpdoc/en/reference/datetime/functions/strtotime.xml?r1=1.21&r2=1.22&diff_format=u
Index: phpdoc/en/reference/datetime/functions/strtotime.xml
diff -u phpdoc/en/reference/datetime/functions/strtotime.xml:1.21
phpdoc/en/reference/datetime/functions/strtotime.xml:1.22
--- phpdoc/en/reference/datetime/functions/strtotime.xml:1.21 Thu
Feb 15 08:12:19 2007
+++ phpdoc/en/reference/datetime/functions/strtotime.xml Mon
Apr 9 13:24:35 2007
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
-<!-- $Revision: 1.21 $ -->
+<!-- $Revision: 1.22 $ -->
<!-- splitted from ./en/functions/datetime.xml, last change in rev
1.8 -->
<refentry id="function.strtotime">
<refnamediv>
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
<note>
<para>
If the number of the year is specified in a two digit format, the
values
- between 0-69 are mapped to 2000-2069 and 70-100 to 1970-2000.
+ between 0-69 are mapped to 2000-2069 and 70-99 to 1970-2000.
This doesn't make sense either. Shouldn't it be 1970-1999 then?
-Hannes
</para>
</note>
</refsect1>
Good point, can't believe I missed that! :)
- maciek
