We have sha1, sha256 and sha512, but sha-2 and sha-3.
Could we rename them to match the canonical SHA-N form that the specifications use?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
6
-
$\begingroup$ That indeed seems to make sense… especially, since those “sha256”-alike types could be made into tag-synonyms to be sure no one gets lost along the way. (Btw.: hope you don’t mind the minor tag-edit.) $\endgroup$– e-sushiJul 7, 2014 at 21:05
-
1$\begingroup$ Yes, synonyms would definitely make sense. $\endgroup$– otusJul 9, 2014 at 19:34
-
$\begingroup$ I would disagree; SHA256 and SHA512 are two different hash functions; I'm not certain if lumping them together into a SHA2 category is necessarily the Right Thing. $\endgroup$– ponchoJul 19, 2014 at 1:10
-
$\begingroup$ @poncho, I just meant renaming SHA256 -> SHA-256 (making the former a synonym as e-sushi mentioned). $\endgroup$– otusJul 19, 2014 at 12:13
-
$\begingroup$ Oh, "never mind"... $\endgroup$– ponchoJul 19, 2014 at 14:17
-
$\begingroup$ @poncho The amount of time that the difference really matters would be minimal, and it's unlikely that any question that does discuss the difference cannot be found because they are "lumped together". Tags are for aggregating (and empathizing), not separating; tags don't have to catch all meaning. $\endgroup$– Maarten Bodewes ModJul 20, 2014 at 15:06
Add a comment
|
