[css-shadow] Confusing spec naming

[Crissov]

The CSSWG, on 2 September 2021, resolved on #5809 as follows:

astearns: What should we rename scoping to?
css-shadow-dom
TabAtkins: Have shadow-parts. maybe just shadow? Shadow-dom?
fantasai: I would go with css-shadow. Clarify in title
fantasai: Should shadow-parts merge in?
TabAtkins: If this became a shadow spec, yeah
astearns: css-shadow styling spec for both
fantasai: CSS Shadow DOM Integration or something like that. not styling the shadows
TabAtkins: Shortname is what'simportant. shadow or shadow-dom
fantasai: css-shadow
astearns: Other opinions?
astearns: prop: Take css-shadow-parts and css-scoping drafts, integrate, adn republish as css-shadow
astearns: Obj?
RESOLVED: Take css-shadow-parts and css-scoping drafts, integrate, and republish as css-shadow

Originally, #6370 was about updating css-scoping. This has been prepared in #13333 together with the merger.

In that editorial issue, I questioned the naming choice. Since @SebastianZ suggested this should be discussed in a separate issue, I’m just copying my remarks from there:

I find the name chosen for this CSS module most unfortunate! CSS has text shadows and box shadows (with several properties and grammar productions named accordingly), as well as a drop-shadow() filter function. Confusingly, this "CSS Shadow Module" is not about any of these styling-related topics. Instead, the module is about a DOM concept and, accordingly, it does not introduce any new properties or values to CSS, just several selectors (i.e. pseudo-classes :host, :host(), :host-context() and :has-slotted and functional pseudo-elements ::slotted() and ::part(), as of writing this comment) and even generic(?) host document attributes (part and exportparts), which surely should be something left to the respective document language standards like HTML and SVG, or perhaps to the specification of the DOM . A previous WD had introduced a ::shadow pseudo-element, but that is apparently gone for good (or just for now?).

Before advancing this ED to WD, I would therefore strongly suggest the CSSWG reconsidered the (full and short) name and the scope of this specification.
From the little I understand of the topic and inspired by the precedence set by “Non-element Selectors” selectors-nonelement, I offer the suggestions “Component Selectors” selectors-component, “Hosted Selectors” selectors-hosted, “Scoped Selectors” selectors-scoped or, if you really must, “Shadow Selectors” selectors-shadow.

PS: The original, seemingly brief discussion mentions css-shadow-dom and “CSS Shadow DOM Integration” as alternatives.

[Crissov]

It may make sense to discuss and resolve this together with #13473.

[SebastianZ]

As every feature in that spec is related to the Shadow DOM, my suggestion is css-shadow-dom for the shortname and "CSS Shadow DOM Styling" for the title. This might be a bit of a mouthful, but it clearly expresses what it covers and it aligns with CSS Forms 1, CSS Scrollbars 1, and possibly others. (For completeness, the full names would then be css-shadow-dom-1 and "CSS Shadow DOM Styling Module Level 1".)

@fantasai As you initially said, it should just be "shadow" and not "shadow-dom" for the shortname, what was the reason behind that?
@tabatkins @fergald As editors of that spec, do you have an opinion?

Sebastian

[SebastianZ]

and even generic(?) host document attributes (part and exportparts), which surely should be something left to the respective document language standards like HTML and SVG, or perhaps to the specification of the DOM.

Absolutely agree. To keep this discussion focused on the naming, I've filed #13523 for that.

Sebastian