Far be it from me to question the great Jeremy Keith, but neither of the XHTML 2.0 quotes is wholly accurate. It's true that XML parsing requires that it stops immediately on encountering a syntax error - note that XHTML content model errors are not a problem - it does not require that the browser displays nothing. It can, within the rules, display everything it has parsed up to the point where it encounters the syntax error. This is in fact no different to what browsers do today when parsing documents using the HTML5's XML syntax.
And in the case of XHTML 2.0 being roundly rejected, that was by those who make web browsers for a living, not those who make websites. XHTML 2.0 was never mature enough for those who make websites to ever attempt to use it.
Far be it from me to question the great Jeremy Keith, but neither of the XHTML 2.0 quotes is wholly accurate. It's true that XML parsing requires that it stops immediately on encountering a syntax error - note that XHTML content model errors are not a problem - it does not require that the browser displays nothing. It can, within the rules, display everything it has parsed up to the point where it encounters the syntax error. This is in fact no different to what browsers do today when parsing documents using the HTML5's XML syntax.
And in the case of XHTML 2.0 being roundly rejected, that was by those who make web browsers for a living, not those who make websites. XHTML 2.0 was never mature enough for those who make websites to ever attempt to use it.
Thanks for these details :)