4 ms·
(author) No, I'm sticking to this. If it's 3.0, then why are references to 2.0 still present? It reads more like that's what they wanted to call it, not because
by classichasclass 3y ago
(author) No, I'm sticking to this. If it's 3.0, then why are references to 2.0 still present? It reads more like that's what they wanted to call it, not because there's any substantial technical difference.