I suppose a "declarator" (English) isn't the same as a "declarator" (grammar production). The former is more general. Although [dcl.dcl]p4 seems to use the term in the narrow sense.

@tkoeppe, I believe you're confused here.

[dcl.decl] p1 clearly distinguishes "declarator" and "initializer", and I fail to see a use of an English-level "declarator" anywhere. (Some of these words are not \grammarterm'ed, but probably should be.)

The note in [dcl.decl] p3 muddies the waters a bit, though.

Back to the original issue: I think this should be "An init-declarator can specify an initial value ..." In this context, an initializer always specifies an initial value, so it doesn't fit the "can" in the sentence.

I don't think #1616 is a proper fix for this issue and proposed #1617.

In this context, an initializer always specifies an initial value, so it doesn't fit the "can" in the sentence.

I think "can" here means an initializer is capable of specifying an initial value, and it "can" be used to do that or not, since it is optional (for a declarator).