I'm honestly not sure that <slot> makes more sense than <content>. It's not just any nodes that can be redistributed - it must be children of the host, so <content> makes sense here to me. <content> is where all or some of the hosts content goes.

Slot does seem pretty generic... like <content>. Can't say I'm behind the new name idea either.

This might be bikeshed. :)

Can we defer the decision until the upcoming Imperative APIs proposal?
I hope the situation will be more clear after that.

Sure, I don't feel strongly about this. Dimitri came up with this and I liked it since it was a somewhat shorter and clearer name.

To reply to Justin, it's the host element's content that is distributed. But it's not distributed into content... Rather, it's content distributed into slots based on (most likely) a Turing complete set of rules.

If I were allowed to write the spec from the scratch, I prefer "slot" to "content" because the name of "slot" is more intuitive than insertion points to me.

However, I am not sure this kind of renaming is really worth doing only because we find a better name.

I'd like to defer this, given we have more high priority tasks.

Okay, let's wait for the imperative API. Because if we change that, we can change this too.

Moved to https://github.com/w3c/webcomponents/issues/92