The term "literal" is not defined, particularly as applied to a character

[dirkf]

What is the issue with the HTML Standard?

Several times the specification uses the term literal to constrain a character, as in 2.3.5.9:

... A literal U+0050 LATIN CAPITAL LETTER P character followed by ...

This usage is not directly defined in the document itself.

In a context (eg, 13.1.2.3 Attributes) where characters can be escaped or represented as &-entities, how should this use of literal be interpreted? Does it mean:

• the constrained character, if not escaped
• the constrained character, whether escaped or not
• the constrained character, whether escaped or represented as an &-entity or not (I hope not)
• etc?

If there is a consistent interpretation for all the cases where a character is constrained to be literal, I suggest that it be added to the document, or reference made to any external definition. Otherwise, the terminology should be adjusted as appropriate throughout the document with the addition of any resulting new or missing definitions.

[dirkf]

Above comment is phishing spam.

[annevk]

Per Infra we can replace such instances with

A U+0050 (P) followed by

and we typically do that when we refactor relevant sections. If anyone wants to do that proactively that is of course welcomed.