Re: [date] tag not working on mac 4.0.1
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2000
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 34442
interpreted = N
texte = >>On my WebStar server running WebCat 4.0.1 the [date] tag returns 7 >>and [date %m/%d/%Y] returns 7%m/%d/%Y] >>What is the deal? > >I discovered a similar deal yesterday and posted a note to the list about it. >Your stuff will work in WC3. >Try using [date format=%m/%d/%Y] in WC4.That's a different issue entirely.Text variables that override tags in the NEW hierarchy but not in the OLD hierarchy have nothing to do with the syntax changes built into webcat 4 that make [date %m/%d/%Y] fail and [date format=%m/%d/%Y] work in the new version.These are two very different issues, but as anyone can see, they BOTH break webcat 3 sites, don't they? And neither one is properly documented -- which is typical for SM. Why is this issue ignored in both the read me file *and* in the files specifically related to upgrading? ================================ Kenneth Grome, WebDNA Consultant 808-737-6499 http://webdna.net ================================------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list
. To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
>>On my WebStar server running WebCat 4.0.1 the [date] tag returns 7 >>and [date %m/%d/%Y] returns 7%m/%d/%Y] >>What is the deal? > >I discovered a similar deal yesterday and posted a note to the list about it. >Your stuff will work in WC3. >Try using [date format=%m/%d/%Y] in WC4.That's a different issue entirely.Text variables that override tags in the NEW hierarchy but not in the OLD hierarchy have nothing to do with the syntax changes built into webcat 4 that make [date %m/%d/%Y] fail and [date format=%m/%d/%Y] work in the new version.These are two very different issues, but as anyone can see, they BOTH break webcat 3 sites, don't they? And neither one is properly documented -- which is typical for SM. Why is this issue ignored in both the read me file *and* in the files specifically related to upgrading? ================================ Kenneth Grome, WebDNA Consultant 808-737-6499 http://webdna.net ================================------------------------------------------------------------- This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to the mailing list . To unsubscribe, E-mail to: To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to Web Archive of this list is at: http://search.smithmicro.com/
Kenneth Grome
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
Change [cart] date (2002)
WebCat and Personal Web Server (1998)
WC TableGrinder (1997)
[WebDNA] Putting '&search' into URL killing all search contexts (2010)
Bug Report, maybe (1997)
email preferences on NT (1997)
emailer truncates last letter! (1997)
Anyone have an invoicing system? (1999)
Ok here is a question? (1997)
Emailer Chokes on bad address (1997)
ooops...WebCatalog [FoundItems] Problem - LONG - (1997)
Help! WebCat2 bug (Ben's input) (1997)
Help! WebCat2 bug (1997)
test (2008)
WebCatalog Mac 2.1b3 (1997)
how to use WebCat w. SSL & CyberCash (1998)
Navigator Parsing (1997)
filemaker - orderfile (1997)
Problems with [Applescript] (1997)
[group] ? (1997)