Which CRC extension option is better: filename.sha3 or filename.txt.sha3 ?

[PiotrMP006]

Hi

Which CRC extension option is better: filename.sha3 or filename.txt.sha3 ?

Please help

[beb]

"test.sha3":
it's a file that gives a user quick info upon double click, whether the hash sum(s) of the relevant file(s) are consistent and still valid.
it's still a text file available for viewing and editing as such if needed.
cannot see any sense in the double extension here (hence, my choice is "test.sha3" again, and not "test.txt.sha3").

[Dalai]

I don't think one thing is better than the other. It all comes down to preference.

My answer is "It depends". If there are several files with the same basename in the same directory and you want to have separate hash files for each file, there's no way around test.txt.sha3. Of course, the question is why you'd want to have separate hash files for files with the same basename in the first place. It probably depends again .

Anyway, I also prefer to avoid double extensions, but there are cases and situations where it doesn't work any other way.

Regards
Dalai