Natural languages have redundancy because they're often used in cases where transmission is imperfect. The redundancy provides enough information to piece the meaning back together even if the distortion is high.
A similar example of redundancy is the check digit on a credit card number. You could save some space by eliminating it, but then simple human error can cost people a lot of time and money.
The same principle applies to programming languages. They most commonly get distorted through copy/paste and through modification in adjacent code. Sometimes those distortions create a result that is syntactically invalid, which is the best case scenario and gives you a chance to piece it back together. But the more flexible your syntax is and the less redundancy it has, the harder it is to recover from errors. The distorted code can look correct.
Closing tags and curly braces give extra redundancy to a language which can allow for better error recovery in the case of distortion. They're the check digits of programming: they're not exciting or flashy, but they provide a layer of safety to sharing and modification.
The urge to remove delimiters is the lojban impulse [0] applied to programming languages. It's elegant and clean and impractical.
My opinion is that if your answer to a deficiency in the language's syntax is to just test harder you're missing something. Quick feedback loops are essential, and the quickest feedback loop at all is having a syntax where it's immediately obvious to the human looking at the code (before analysis is even run!) when there's a problem.
It'd be even better (in this way at least) if the compiler required they match, but you are also a parser.
I see now that the way I present it is vague. In future post I'll improve the presentation of it.
Thank you for you attetion to detail and for the argument. As humans we are prone to error. With that in mind I think this can be a valuable addition to the markups.
Thank you!
table [...] /table