You're agreeing with me and saying I'm wrong.
People see the words "explosion proof" and they usually think it means that the object is proof against explosions - that if you put the object on top of a stick of dynamite and light it, the object will not be harmed by the dynamite explosion. This is what "water proof" and "acid proof" and "gasoline proof" all mean - that the object so rated cannot be harmed by the process or substance it is "proof" against - so it's a reasonable mistake.
But "explosion proof" does not mean an object is proof against explosions in the way that a "gasoline proof" hose is proof against gasoline - rather it means that the object is unlikely to trigger any explosion. I use the word unlikely because you can drop a metallic explosion proof electrical housing on a concrete floor when explosive materials are present, strike a spark, and BOOM it happens. (I used to work with explosion proof fittings and equipment every day in a rocket motor factory, and this possibility was pointed out to us in our safety briefings).
I believe that the explosion proof fittings I have used (principally gasketed electrical junction boxes and conduit) are tested by being filled with an explosive gas mixture which is then ignited in a test environment. If any flame escapes the fitting fails the test. I don't know if that's the standard test, though - and I only have that part on hearsay, it's what I was told more than 20 years ago when I was still working on rocket motor testing.
Anyway, lIke I said, most people find the phrase "explosion proof" misleading, so I am endeavoring to clarify it. I am not criticizing anything or anyone. Thanks for sharing your recommendation!