I think it is important to mention anywhere "generalized RDF" is mentioned, because many readers are unlikely to know that "generalized RDF" means RDF that is not standards compliant.  It is fine if someone knowingly chooses to generate non-standard RDF, but it is important that they do so knowingly.  Markus, what confusion do you think that clarification adds?  And would it be less confusing to phrase it something like ". . . also wishes to interpret the data as <<generalized RDF>> (i.e., as RDF that is not standards compliant)"?  Gregg, this is the Syntax doc we're discussing, isn't it?