Learn Build status updates of commit 3af6278:

✅ Validation status: passed

For more details, please refer to the build report.

For any questions, please:

• Try searching the learn.microsoft.com contributor guides
• Post your question in the Learn support channel

Thank you @hawkeye101. I want to figure out what the correct spelling is first (I left a question in the issue). Also, we'll probably need to update the SHA256 class docs as well.

In general, I would expect SHA-256 when referring to the algorithm, and SHA256 when referring to the class.

It gets a little messier because SHA-2-256 is also acceptable, but in general I think it should only be used when disambiguating SHA-2-256 and SHA-3-256.

We should also address any inconsistencies with SHA384/SHA-384 and SHA512/SHA-512. I suspect they inherited any documentation inconsistencies.

@bartonjs likely has thoughts, too.

I, personally, prefer always using "SHA-2-256" over "SHA-256", but I'm a pedant. Kevin's suggested "SHA256" is the class, "SHA-256" is the algorithm is probably the best starting place. Anything that already says "SHA-2-256" probably isn't worth changing since they'd have to be read to see if they're excluding (or contradistincting against) "SHA-3-256".

@gewarren Here is what I've understood. Just want to confirm before I make the changes.

• In the HMAC class, it says "by using the SHA256 hash function" which contains a hyperlink to the SHA256 class. It seems to be referring to the algorithm here, not the class. So this should be SHA-256 and hyperlink removed.
• In the fields, methods of HMAC class it should be SHA-256 as it is referring to the algorithm.
• In the SHA256 class docs, "The hash size for the SHA256 algorithm is 256 bits" should be changed to "The hash size for the SHA-256 algorithm is 256 bits".

These are the only changes required as far as I understand. Please let me know if there are more (like HMACSHA3 classes)

@hawkeye101 Those changes look correct to me. There are likely additional changes required, but that would require additional research.

Thank you @hawkeye101. I'm going to close this in favor of the more comprehensive #11104.