[css-contain-3] Bikeshed the container property & at-rule names to avoid confusion with other usage of contain/container

[mirisuzanne]

In the CSS Containment Module L3 we define container-type, and container-name properties, along with a container shorthand.

I personally think "container" is the clearest term we have for this feature (and twitter seems to agree, but there is some potential for confusion. We already have a (related but different) contain property, and many other variations pm "container" terminology in CSS specifications.

Other names that have been suggested:

• query (clear association, but the verb doesn't entirely make sense when applied to the containing element)
• context
• component
• module
• structure
• viewbox
• enclosure
• compartment

Unfortunately, many of these alternative also have existing meaning that could cause confusion.

(Depending on the language we choose, @container may also need to be updated.)

[Alohci]

The potential for confusion between "contain" and "container" seems huge, particularly given their values similarity and the interaction between them. The more I think about it, the more it seems that "container" focuses on the wrong word. The purpose of the property is not that it is a container - which could have any number of purposes - but that the subject elements' computed values are queryable. I suggest then that "queryable" - the adjective, not "query" the verb - would be a better property name choice.

[nachtfunke]

Even in my reading through the spec I had a hard time differentiating initially. I originally thought that contain: inline-size; is equivalent to container-type: inline-size;. But if I understand this correctly, container-type will also set containment behaviour, including size-containment corresponding to what container-type is.

If I understand the spec correctly, then the terminology makes sense. Yet even though I already knew about CSS containment I still had to read up quite a bit to make sense of it. So in a way, container-type & container-name relate to contain like display: flex; relates to align-items & justify-content (reductive statement, just for the mental model).

If that is the case, then not only do I think it's not a problem that the name is similar, I think it might in fact be beneficial - because that can be learned and understood and easier so because they are terminologically connected.

I believe that in all of the communication it'll be important to also teach the concept of containment isolated from container querying, as to understand the reason for why that is how it is.

[mirisuzanne]

I think we're pretty close to the point of no return for renaming this feature or the properties involved. I'd like to get this closed out one way or the other if we can.

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed Bikeshed 'container' property name, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: Close no change.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<TabAtkins> Topic: Bikeshed 'container' property name
<TabAtkins> github: https://github.com//issues/6376
<TabAtkins> astearns: Sounds like you'd like to change this issue no-change?
<TabAtkins> miriam: Yes, I'd love that.
<TabAtkins> astearns: This feature has gone thru lots of people. Haven't heard complaints about the current names.
<TabAtkins> astearns: Anyone object to closing this no change?
<jensimmons> +1 to closing
<fantasai> +1
<TabAtkins> astearns: Or has anyone heard complaints?
<TabAtkins> RESOLVED: Close no change.