Re: [POLL] Naming of "export features"

[No Wayman]

> ⁃ Providing capabilities via snippets can be framed as akin to 
> dynamically
>   gaining a feature.

I understand some snippets may be used to, for example, include a 
latex package.
However, it's not a requirement that a snippet "add a 
feature/capability" to a document.
What that snippet does depends entirely on the context of the 
export (a latex snippet will not "do" anything if inserted in an 
HTML doc).
What if I want to add some metadata or a string like "Hi, Mom" in 
the preamble of the document? Would it be reasonable to say the 
document has had the "secret mom greeting" capability added, or is 
that an overly complicated way of framing it?
Is the snippet required to have a side-effect on the document?

On the obverse, the snippets are always being added depending on 
the context of the export.
`ox-contextual-snippets` is a much more concrete name than any of 
the others proposed.

> Both components are crucial to the overall system, however if 
> anything I view
> the latter as more important and so am not a fan of describing 
> this system as
> “export contexts”.

How is the latter more important if it depends on the former?

As I mentioned off list, I think naming is only part of the 
problem.
The design and API are currently over-engineered.
That should be discussed before worrying about the name.