[csswg-drafts] [css-shadow] Confusing spec naming (#13360)

Crissov has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [css-shadow] Confusing spec naming ==
The CSSWG, on 2 September 2021, resolved on #5809 as follows:

> <dael> astearns: What should we rename scoping to?
<TabAtkins> css-shadow-dom
<dael> TabAtkins: Have shadow-parts. maybe just shadow? Shadow-dom?
<dael> fantasai: I would go with css-shadow. Clarify in title
<dael> fantasai: Should shadow-parts merge in?
<dael> TabAtkins: If this became a shadow spec, yeah
<dael> astearns: css-shadow styling spec for both
<dael> fantasai: CSS Shadow DOM Integration or something like that. not styling the shadows
<dael> TabAtkins: Shortname is what'simportant. shadow or shadow-dom
<dael> fantasai: css-shadow
<dael> astearns: Other opinions?
<dael> astearns: prop: Take css-shadow-parts and css-scoping drafts, integrate, adn republish as css-shadow
<dael> astearns: Obj?
<dael> 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](https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/custom-elements.html#custom-elements) and SVG, or perhaps to the specification of the [DOM ](https://dom.spec.whatwg.org/#shadow-trees). A previous WD had introduced a [`::shadow` pseudo-element](https://www.w3.org/TR/css-scoping-1/#shadow-pseudoelement), 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`](https://drafts.csswg.org/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.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13360 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Friday, 16 January 2026 10:50:50 UTC