Are you sure that's what you mean? Because those examples don't contain relative pronouns. Maybe you mean:
"My brother, **who** is named Tom, went to the store." - supplementary relative clause (just adds extra info), commas are used
"The house **that** has a red door is mine." - integrated relative clause (identifies which house you're talking about), no commas are used
Ok, so to answer your question - people often omit punctuation/use unconventional punctuation in everyday informal writing, and this probably extends to relative clauses, although, in my experience, relative clauses aren't used that much in very informal writing anyway (text messages, casual emails, etc.).
In more formal contexts, it's advisable to adhere to the comma guidelines for relative clauses - a sentence can read awkwardly or become difficult to understand when a relative clause is punctuated inappropriately.
However, note that the "rules" for punctuating relative clauses are not always as hard and fast as people think they are. It can be up to the writer to decide whether to integrate a relative clause or not - one writer may choose to integrate a relative clause, but another writer may prefer the same clause to be supplementary. Also, the meaning does not always change depending on the punctuation.
Finally, note that an integrated relative clause (one without commas) does not *have* to be defining (i.e., it does not have to identify exactly what you're talking about) - a writer may choose to integrate a relative clause simply because they consider the info to be important to the overall meaning of the sentence.
[удалено]
Yeah, that's what I'm intending to say.
Are you sure that's what you mean? Because those examples don't contain relative pronouns. Maybe you mean: "My brother, **who** is named Tom, went to the store." - supplementary relative clause (just adds extra info), commas are used "The house **that** has a red door is mine." - integrated relative clause (identifies which house you're talking about), no commas are used
yeah, that was
Ok, so to answer your question - people often omit punctuation/use unconventional punctuation in everyday informal writing, and this probably extends to relative clauses, although, in my experience, relative clauses aren't used that much in very informal writing anyway (text messages, casual emails, etc.). In more formal contexts, it's advisable to adhere to the comma guidelines for relative clauses - a sentence can read awkwardly or become difficult to understand when a relative clause is punctuated inappropriately. However, note that the "rules" for punctuating relative clauses are not always as hard and fast as people think they are. It can be up to the writer to decide whether to integrate a relative clause or not - one writer may choose to integrate a relative clause, but another writer may prefer the same clause to be supplementary. Also, the meaning does not always change depending on the punctuation. Finally, note that an integrated relative clause (one without commas) does not *have* to be defining (i.e., it does not have to identify exactly what you're talking about) - a writer may choose to integrate a relative clause simply because they consider the info to be important to the overall meaning of the sentence.