Not quite. I did check the definitions given to make sure it wasn't already there (this time), and when you said it was definition 5, I checked again. Completely different things. Definition 5 refers to the authenticity of the works themselves and to whom they're attributed, whereas the definition I've posted is more in relation to the "facts" of a fictional world. I just read the weekly wrap-up thing from that week (yeah, I'm a little bit behind in my emails - 50, in fact), and a few people had sent in the definition I posted, although they always seemed to relate it to comic books, and they're understanding of breaking canon was different to mine (I would only say something breaks canon if it directly contradicts previously stated canon, whereas their explanations imply (to me, at least) that basically anything new that a fan doesn't like breaks canon).
This is all assuming I've understood correctly and you're saying that the definition I posted is the same as definition 5 in that link.
Also, I have a feeling that canon may have been a title or something in some church or another given to a person, but I could be very wrong there.
Last edited by Mit; 02/02/10 06:01 AM.
