Change 'CSS Modules' name to avoid webdev confusion

[gregwhitworth]

@stubbornella first alerted us to web developers having confusion with CSS Modules and the popular CSS Modules project which helps handle CSS scoping. Since the name CSS Modules is never surfaced within the API and is only used in the specification I think it's safe to change how the specification references it to avoid web developer confusion (heck it will help in SEO too :) ).

Here are some of the options I've heard:

1. Style Modules
2. StyleSheet Modules

Any other suggestions are welcome.

[matthewp]

I disagree, CSS Modules is a generic name that describes the type of module it is. We call JavaScript Modules despite pre-existing types of JavaScript Modules. Style Modules / etc. would be less descriptive about what they are and make it harder to find.

[thepassle]

There was already discussion around this here.

Furthermore I agree with Justin's comment here, and think we should stick with the name 'CSS Modules'.

[gregwhitworth]

I don't necessarily disagree and stated the same thing here on twitter and am honestly not too bullish in one direction or the other. I suspect that Justin is correct that as the issues with scoping are solved then the project CSS Modules will go away. That said, naming them Style or Stylesheet modules within the specification doesn't stop us or the community from referring to them as CSS Modules when the context is known. Similar to how you stated that ECMAScript Modules you use the term JS Modules. At any rate, I'll say that I come down on the side of not changing the name - but I think it's worth considering other options since it's only an editorial change.

[benschwarz]

I disagree, CSS Modules is a generic name that describes the type of module it is

That would be true if there wasn't a very popular project that achieves a similar result with 12,630 stars on GitHub.

CSS Modules is also built into webpack (via the css-loader) and there's also a plugin for post-css. So there could potentially be confusion for developers in respect to tooling.

In fact, CSS Modules is also identified by the State of CSS Survey as one of the most popular (and still rising) css-in-js projects:

I think the surface area of "CSS Modules" is a lot more dramatic than first thought.

Since the name CSS Modules is never surfaced within the API and is only used in the specification

Given the above, what reasons do you have to keep using the same name? Other than "We've already talked about this before"? It seems to me that there's no upsides to keeping the specification title.

[Westbrook]

Being that many of the phase 2+ features I’ve read about people being interested in bring more and more of the things previously known as “CSS Modules” into the browser, doesn’t it make better sense to lean into the confusion than away?

Confusion on differences should drive deeper and broader investment into the spec development process and hopefully a more robust spec shipped to browsers sooner!!

[stubbornella]

I think a new name for a new tech would be better and lead to a lot less confusion. I'd go for "stylesheet modules" but I don't feel strongly between that and "style modules".

In general, it's bad form to take a name that belongs to something else, make it mean something different, and then say "that's ok, we're going to replace your tech in v2 anyway".

Another tactic where you co-design a new tech with the authors of the popular user-space solution would allow more flexibility around using the same names, but even that should be done extremely judiciously. It's not worth the pain for developers trying to disambiguate the two, especially if they are just learning.

[stubbornella]

When you co-design, the popular user-space solution can become the polyfill for the new tech, allowing it to be used more quickly before there is full browser support. The authors can also provide nuanced use cases that might not be obvious at the get-go.

[matthewp]

What exactly do we mean by "name" in this context? There isn't a repo or website called "CSS modules" about this idea. Are we talking about the heading in whichever spec this eventually ends up in? Or something else?

[LarsDenBakker]

They should have expected something like this when they picked such a generic name for a custom project.

[annevk]

@matthewp I'd expect the concept currently called "CSS module script", no?

"CSS style sheet module script" could work, after https://drafts.csswg.org/cssom/#css-style-sheet.

[benschwarz]

They should have expected something like this when they picked such a generic name for a custom project.

This is a really strange comment and the vitriol behind it is concerning tbh

[markcellus]

If we wanna split hairs here, both of the words "CSS" and "Modules" have always been used and driven by the spec, for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying anyone owns the words, but if we're going to be fair, the spec technically used these terms way before the CSS Modules repository came along 🙂 (and just because they put the two words together into a derivative term of "CSS Modules" doesn't make it excusable—especially from an seo perspective)

That being said, I vote that the "CSS Modules" repository maintainers come up with a new name.

[karlhorky]

doesn’t it make better sense to lean into the confusion than away?

@Westbrook I think this is a really dangerous suggestion, and doing this increases the hostility / complexity of the web platform for beginners.

I see first hand with students every day how learning about new web concepts is difficult. Remembering the dizzying amount of new names is hard enough - but if a name can mean two different things, this increases the level of frustration by magnitudes.

[mikesherov]

Here's a naming suggestion if y'all do decide to change it: "Modular CSS"

[Westbrook]

The reason I lean this way @karlhorky is that I’m not sure that it’s the naming that is really going to confuse people. The APIs being 95% the same seems much more trouble some in my experience learning the expansive functionality that is now the web. What’s more when someone learns ES/JS Modules and then JSON Modules and some HTML Modules, then they’ll really be confused when it’s not also CSS module they learn next.are we sure this larger conversation is actually serving the purpose intended in these cases as well?