> To me, that's not the same as the forgiving parsers of HTML and PDF. Oh, of course it's not the same. The point is, in both cases users want strictness, but

> To me, that's not the same as the forgiving parsers of HTML and PDF. Oh, of course it's not the same. The point is, in both cases users want strictness, but don't know that they want. Users want web pages that are easy for their browsers to parse; "want" to different degree, yes, even an indirect "want", but still. If browsers fail to display web page with invalid markup, developers are forced to fix their sh&t instead of adding another exception to an already big pile of "steaming let's not" in the standard. And we had a precedent of going down this way with X.509 certificates. I think it's a pity that the way is too hard for something not as critical as SSL/TLS.