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.
no subject
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)