I don't see why their option shouldn't validate. Both it and your original version are valid HTML 4 (though only theirs is also valid XHTML).
Their CMS's behaviour is reminiscent of that of LJ's HTML "fixer" which spews out a load of close tags for any elements you may have forgotten to close at any point in the rest of the document...
I'd say this "miscorrection" is a bug in the CMS, unless the CMS is expecting to deal with XHTML.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-20 09:48 am (UTC)Their CMS's behaviour is reminiscent of that of LJ's HTML "fixer" which spews out a load of close tags for any elements you may have forgotten to close at any point in the rest of the document...
I'd say this "miscorrection" is a bug in the CMS, unless the CMS is expecting to deal with XHTML.
(S)