#sknebelit's an interesting case, since it evolved from "hacks" to be able to deal with badly written sites, and since the browsers had the code anyways they just allowed it in the spec as well. at least that's my impression ;)
#sknebelnow if non-browser parsers all can deal with all facets of it...
#Zegnatsknebel: I thought SGML specifically supported optional tags? No hacking about it.
#sknebelZegnat: not sure, I thought at least some of these rules were new with HTML5. Or maybe I'm confusing it in contrast to XHTML?
#ZegnatHTML did already not comply 100% with SGML (again IIRC), and HTML5 just standardised how to truly parse it (as SGML parsing woulnd’t get you there).
#ZegnatBut I don’t think optional tags were invented in the HTML5 parsing spec
#ZegnatI admit, it has been a while since I looked at SGML though ;)
tantek and KevinMarks joined the channel
#KevinMarksHtml5 documented and converged behaviour for missing tags