Could we not use the output of "Enforce proper nesting of HTML" and "HTML error reporting during Preview" to drive new code which would auto-close tags still improperly open at the end of a node, if the writer fails to correct them before submitting?

Why?

if you, personally, always want to see balanced html tags, then check the box, and you will always see balanced html tags, regardless of who wrote the node, or how diligent they were about balancing their html tags.

problem solved.

if the nodes where "auto-closed" when they were created, it would be impossible to ever see the "original" node as written, which can be helpful to understand "what the hell was this person trying to say?"

Update: Absolute URL since i forgot that link shortcuts don't support relative anchors... http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node=17642#display

if you, personally, always want to see balanced html tags, then check the box, and you will always see balanced html tags, regardless of who wrote the node, or how diligent they were about balancing their html tags.

I personally believe I should apologize: my fault for virtually never checking the settings. The point is, it seems there are so many of them, perhaps even too many, often with poorly chosen defaults. This is in contrast with Perl's philosophy itself, which is much about intellegently chosen defaults. Who could possibly not want to see balanced html tags? And even if one such person exists, then why is (s)he given the right to screw up the view for anyone else?

--
If you can't understand the incipit, then please check the IPB Campaign.

And even if one such person exists, then why is (s)he given the right to screw up the view for anyone else?

No one is given the right to screw up anything for anyone else ... if i leave the box unchecked, and i post garbage posts with crappy unclosed tags, that doesn't screw anything up for you as long as you have the box checked.

If however post content was "auto-fixed" on creation, that would "screw up" the original content for anyone who wanted to see it.

I won't dispute an argument that the default value for users should be "checked", mainly because i have no idea what the default value is for new users ... i suspect when the feature was added it was left unchecked for existing users so as to be backwards compatible and not change existing behavior (which also fits into the Perl philosophy)

PS: I regard to a Private Message i received about whether or not the XML view would show you the original intent: that's not going to help you if you *change* the content when it's created, that's why "Enforce proper nesting of HTML" is a *display* setting.