SEO groups universally answer hyphens (option 2) over underscores as Google evidently parses the former as word separators and the latter as word joiners. While we don't care about search rank for our purposes, it seems good to remain consistent with the preferred route nowadays (even though I personally like underscores as I find them easier to read even though hyphens are faster to type). Here's just one example [0], but I skimmed many and they're consistent.
[0] https://www.woorank.com/en/blog/underscores-in-urls-why-are-they-not-recommended Dana Walker Associate Software Engineer Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> <https://red.ht/sig> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Bruno Rocha <bro...@redhat.com> wrote: > IMO option 2 "slug" is the most common for urls. > > Em seg, 17 de set de 2018 19:12, Jeff Ortel <jor...@redhat.com> escreveu: > >> What is the project policy on word separators in URLs? >> >> My take on 3 most common options: >> >> 1. The words run together - is hard to read. Example: /contentguard/ >> 2. Hyphens in URLs are easy to type and read. Most common and >> recommended based on my limited search. Example: /content-guard/ >> 3. Underscores strike me as odd outside of programming languages. Harder >> to type. Example: /content_guard/ >> >> Does django have a recommendation/limitation? >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pulp-dev mailing list >> Pulp-dev@redhat.com >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > >
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
