Docs for [[clang::no_specializations]] attribute use "explicitly specialized" ambiguously

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/AttributeReference.html#no-specializations says (emphasis mine):

[[clang::no_specializations]] can be applied to function, class, or variable templates which should not be explicitly specialized by users. This is primarily used to diagnose user specializations of standard library type traits.

This seems like a poor choice of wording. The C++ standard talks about "partial specializations" and "explicit specializations", but what Clang refers to as "explicitly specialized" seems to be both. I think this is an internal term used within the clang codebase and does not match the terminology of the C++ standard.

IMHO it would make more sense for user-facing docs to use the standard terminology, or pick a completely different term which isn't ambiguous.