Inbox by Gmail inconsistently adding/breaking HTML code? (injecting table tbody tr td tags, etc)
Hi there. Does Inbox by Gmail occasionally run amok with anyone else's layout code? The email team at my org have a problem that I can see on some of their machines, but can't reproduce on mine or others.
They're trying to send an email that has some content surrounded by a div tag with a thick blue border around it. Not complex code. In most of their sample sends, it works fine. However, on one of the sample sends, a couple of recipients on Inbox by Gmail saw the "blue box" content actually broken up into four smaller, separate boxes, one atop the other, each with its own thick blue border.
Using Chrome dev tools to inspect the message's HTML source on one of these recipients' machines, I see that there's all this extra layout and formatting code that does not exist in the CRM source. Where each of the four boxes are, I see two levels of nested table/tbody/tr/td tags (with an impressive array of attributes and inline styles), then two levels of nested div tags, and the innermost div has an inline style that creates the blue border. I have no idea where any of the table tags are coming from. It's NOT from our CRM source; the email body for this mailing contains no table code whatsoever (although I'm afraid their wrapper does apply a four-deep nested table structure, which could probably be improved upon, but they've been using this wrapper for literal years and have never seen a problem like this). The div tag structure and attributes ARE from our CRM source, but duplicated four times, inside of these rogue tables, when it should be all in a single set of two nested divs.
Weirder still: it's not consistent. I and others received sample sends of this same email with no issue in Inbox. Even one of the folks who did get the broken sample saw no problem on a subsequent sample delivery of the very same unchanged email.
I've run the CRM source through various tidiers and validators and find no structural problems with the HTML source. It actually comes pretty close to passing W3C validation, ugly table-based wrapper and all.
I'd love to know if anyone else has seen this. Even if you don't have any answers, just be nice to know we're not hallucinating this very odd problem! Thanks.