Why is partial specialization of a nested class template allowed, while complete isn't?

    template<int x> struct A {                                                                                                    
        template<int y> struct B {};.                                                                                             
        template<int y, int unused> struct C {};                                                                                  
    };                                                                                                                            

    template<int x> template<> 
    struct A<x>::B<x> {}; // error: enclosing class templates are not explicitly specialized

    template<int x> template<int unused> 
    struct A<x>::C<x, unused> {}; // ok

So why is the explicit specialization of a inner, nested class (or function) not allowed, if the outer class isn't specialized too? Strange enough, I can work around this behaviour if I only partially specialize the inner class with simply adding a dummy template parameter. Makes things uglier and more complex, but it works.

I would consider complete specializations as a subset of partial specializations - especially because you can express every complete specialization as a partial with adding a dummy parameter. So this disambiguation between partial and full specialization doesn't really make sense for me.

Unfortunatly nobody at comp.std.c++ dared to answer, so I am putting it up here again with a bounty.

Note: I need this feature for recursive templates of the inner class for a set of the outer class and the specialization of the inner parameter does depend on the outer template parameter.