You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
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.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
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: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: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.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: