In the French school of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), a tacit agreement that “specialized domains form homogenous and coherent entities” (cf. organizers’ CFP) is often conveyed in research discussions, a position which diverges somewhat from ESP practices elsewhere where a different understanding of the relationship between domain and specialized language prevails. This understanding is largely shaped by a Firthian understanding (Swales, 1985) that staged genre structures and related grammatical, lexical and rhetoric patterns arise because they fulfill a pragmatic social function and purpose (Halliday, 1978). Likewise, because the patterns’ meaning draws on social context (Halliday, 1993), individuals rely on shared understandings of that meaning in order to carry out relevant social actions (Martin, 1985, Miller, 1984). Greater emphasis is placed on interactants’ communicative purposes (Askehave & Swales, 2001) and how they carry them out within an interpretive community, than on discrete language types situated within spheres of specialization to be delimited and categorized, an epistemological nuance more typical of French ESP (ex. Delagneau, 2008). While specific sociohistorical and epistemological explanations may drive traditional French ESP conceptions of specialized domain (Dressen-Hammouda, 2014, Wozniak, 2019), a paradigm shift appears to be underway, as reflected in the growing interest by France-based researchers in professional discourses, ethnographic approaches and the centrifugal effects of the digital revolution on specialized discourses (e.g., Domenec & Millot to appear, Dressen-Hammouda, 2022, Dressen-Hammouda & Wigham, 2022, Isani, 2014, Kloppmann-Lambert, 2021, Millot, 2017, van der Yeught, 2016, Wozniak, 2019, among others). This paper contributes to the discussion by proposing a reflection on the nature of (D)iscourse community (Gee, 2015), specialized domains and genres, seen through the lens of a singular professional community, little known in France. Despite its international recognition, the field of technical communication resists characterization, owing to a lack of institutionalization and attendant professional training programs. Moreover, many non-specialists (i.e., laypeople) carry out its work thanks to the widespread availability of design tools and the easy dissemination of digital genres over the Internet. In particular, this paper questions whether as a professional domain, technical communication fulfills the criteria for recognition as a discourse community (Swales, 2016) or even of “specializedness” (Petit, 2010, van der Yeught, 2016). The implications of this largely theoretical challenge to ESP may further expand understandings of these concepts.