We have , and , but and .

Could we rename them to match the canonical SHA-N form that the specifications use?

  • $\begingroup$ 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-sushi
    Jul 7, 2014 at 21:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, synonyms would definitely make sense. $\endgroup$
    – otus
    Jul 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. $\endgroup$
    – poncho
    Jul 19, 2014 at 1:10
  • $\begingroup$ @poncho, I just meant renaming SHA256 -> SHA-256 (making the former a synonym as e-sushi mentioned). $\endgroup$
    – otus
    Jul 19, 2014 at 12:13
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, "never mind"... $\endgroup$
    – poncho
    Jul 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 Mod
    Jul 20, 2014 at 15:06

1 Answer 1


I renamed them as and and created synonyms for and . I also changed to and created the synonym.

Did I miss any?

  • $\begingroup$ Looks like you’ve catched them all. ;) $\endgroup$
    – e-sushi
    Jul 25, 2014 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ Looking good, I think $\endgroup$
    – otus
    Jul 25, 2014 at 23:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .