> For file size optimization and scannability purposes
Omitting tags means less transfered bytes means faster websites. If the browser can forgivingly parse HTML like this, why not take advantage of it?
Of course, it doesn't sit well with me either. This'll take some time to digest, but it is interesting to consider.
Perhaps HTML could have been better designed with performance in mind. Every tag you open (i.e. <foo>) you're supposed to close (i.e. </foo>) which is quite redundant in terms of bytes when you think about it. It is easy to imagine markup languages that minimize the number of bytes the client has to transfer.
Cutting out optional tags will improve page size, download speed etc; something that's obviously important when you're serving so many billions of users.