You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jan 30, 2020. It is now read-only.
Is there any reason why DateTime::ISO8601 is still used in DateTimeFormatter?
Taken from the docs:
DateTime::ISO8601
DATE_ISO8601 ISO-8601 (example: 2005-08-15T15:52:01+0000) Note: This format is not compatible with ISO-8601, but is left this way for backward compatibility reasons. Use DateTime::ATOM or DATE_ATOM for compatibility with ISO-8601 instead.
DateTime::ATOM
DATE_ATOM Atom (example: 2005-08-15T15:52:01+00:00)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
* add documentation for DateTimeFormatter. Addresses zendframework#58.
* add @todo notation in docblock for `$format` property
* add tests for new option
marcguyer
added a commit
to marcguyer/zend-filter
that referenced
this issue
Mar 14, 2019
* add documentation for DateTimeFormatter. Addresses zendframework#58.
* add @todo notation in docblock for `$format` property
* add tests for new option
marcguyer
added a commit
to marcguyer/zend-filter
that referenced
this issue
Mar 14, 2019
* add documentation for DateTimeFormatter. Addresses zendframework#58.
* add @todo notation in docblock for `$format` property
* add tests for new option
Is there any reason why DateTime::ISO8601 is still used in DateTimeFormatter?
Taken from the docs:
DateTime::ISO8601
DATE_ISO8601
ISO-8601 (example: 2005-08-15T15:52:01+0000)
Note: This format is not compatible with ISO-8601, but is left this way for backward compatibility reasons. Use DateTime::ATOM or DATE_ATOM for compatibility with ISO-8601 instead.
DateTime::ATOM
DATE_ATOM
Atom (example: 2005-08-15T15:52:01+00:00)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: