In Principles of Mathematical Analysis, why does Rudin define connectedness by separated sets? It seems to me that the standard definition with partitioning into two disjoint open sets seems much simpler.
For reference, here is Rudin's definition:
2.45 Definition Two subsets $A$ and $B$ of a metric space $X$ are said to be separated if both $A \cap \bar{B}$ and $\bar{A} \cap B$ are empty, i.e., if no point of $A$ lies in the closure of $B$ and no point of $B$ lies in the closure of $A$.
A set $E \subset X$ is said to be connected if $E$ is not a union of two nonempty separated sets.
It looks to me that the advantage is that the "standard" definition as you call it, requires looking at the subspace topology (as $E$ need not be open). Rudin's definition avoids that and defines connectedness using only the metric.
The closure is needed to avoid situations like partitioning $[0,2]$ in $[0,1]$ and $(1,2]$ or for a more dramatic example, $$ (\{0\}\times[0,1] )\cup\left\{\sin\frac1x:\ x\in(0,1]\right\}\subset\mathbb R^2. $$