The slash being treated as optional is the best possible result, not the worst.
That's a matter of opinion, I'm sure some people would rather see XHTML win out over HTML 5.
It sounds like you're saying transitional documents don't have to be well-formed, and that's not true.
Oh really? The front page of perlmonks renders just fine in my browser but it's not even close to a well-formed document. To clarify, I believe there are two ends of the spectrum: what works and what is correct. Many websites work just fine with broken HTML. Many times, the HTML is intentionally broken to support browsers that don't support standards. I really don't mean to criticize perlmonks here, it works and that's all I ask, but the site doesn't exactly validate.
Myself, I strive to write correct code in any language and to comply with any applicable standards to the best of my ability.In reply to Re^3: For valid HTML
by rowdog
in thread For valid HTML
by Lady_Aleena
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |