根据508法规(对于视障屏幕阅读器)，表格应该只用于保存数据，而不是用于布局，因为它会导致屏幕阅读器崩溃。至少别人是这么告诉我的。

如果您为每个div分配名称，您也可以使用CSS将它们一起蒙皮。只是让他们坐成你想要的样子有点麻烦。

内容和布局之间的分离也使它更容易为您的网站生成打印机友好的布局或不同的皮肤(样式)，而不必创建不同的html文件。有些浏览器(如Firefox)甚至支持从视图菜单中选择样式表。

而且我确实认为保持无表格布局更容易。你不需要担心行span, colspan等等。您只需创建一些容器div并将内容放置在需要的位置。也就是说，我认为它也更有可读性(<div id="sidebar"> vs <tr><td>…</td><td>…<td>sidebar</td></tr>)。

这只是一个你必须学会的小“技巧”(一旦你掌握了这个技巧，我认为它会更容易，更有意义)。

将内容与布局分开是很好的 但这是一个错误的论点;陈词滥调的思考

这是一个错误的论点，因为HTML表格是布局!内容是表中的数据，表示是表本身。这就是为什么从HTML中分离CSS有时会非常困难。您不是将内容与表示分开，而是将表示与表示分开!一堆嵌套的div和一个表没有什么不同——它只是一组不同的标签。

把HTML和CSS分开的另一个问题是，它们需要彼此的密切了解——你真的不能把它们完全分开。无论您做什么，HTML中的标记布局都与CSS文件紧密耦合。

我认为表与div的区别取决于应用程序的需要。

在我们在工作中开发的应用程序中，我们需要一个页面布局，其中各个块将动态地调整自己的大小以适应其内容。我花了几天时间试图让它与CSS和div跨浏览器工作，这是一个完全的噩梦。我们换了桌子，一切都很顺利。

然而，我们的产品有一个非常封闭的受众(我们销售的是带有web界面的硬件)，可访问性问题不是我们关心的问题。我不知道为什么屏幕阅读器不能很好地处理表格，但我猜如果这是开发人员必须处理的方式。

I still don't quite understand how divs / CSS make it easier to change a page design when you consider the amount of testing to ensure the changes work on all browsers, especially with all the hacks and so on. Its a hugely frustrating and tedious process which wastes large amounts of time and money. Thankfully the 508 legislation only applies to the USA (land of the free - yeah right) and so being as I am based in the UK, I can develop web sites in whatever style I choose. Contrary to popular (US) belief, legislation made in Washington doesn't apply to the rest of the world - thank goodness for that. It must have been a good day in the world of web design the day the legislation came into force. I think I'm becoming increasingly cynical as I get older with 25 years in the IT industry but I feel sure this kind of legislation is just to protect jobs. In reality anyone can knock together a reasonable web page with a couple of tables. It takes a lot more effort and knowledge to do this with DIVs / CSS. In my experience it can take hours and hours Googling to find solutions to quite simple problems and reading incomprehensible articles in forums full of idealistic zealots all argueing about the 'right' way to do things. You can't just dip your toe in the water and get things to work properly in every case. It also seems to me that the lack of a definitive guide to using DIVS / CSS "out of the box", that applies to all situations, working on browsers, and written using 'normal' language with no geek speak, also smells of a bit of protectionism. I'm an application developer and I would say it takes almost twice as long to figure out layout problems and test against all browsers than it does to create the basic application, design and implement business objects, and create the database back end. My time = money, both for me and my customers alike so I am sorry if I don't reject all the pro DIV / CSS arguments in favour of cutting costs and providing value for money for my customers. Maybe its just the way that developers minds work, but it seems to me far easier to change a complex table structure than it is to modify DIVs / CSS. Thankfully it now appears that a solution to these issues is now available - its called WPF.

This isn't really about whether 'divs are better than tables for layout'. Someone who understands CSS can duplicate any design using 'layout tables' pretty straightforwardly. The real win is using HTML elements for what they are there for. The reason you would not use tables for non-tablular data is the same reason you don't store integers as character strings - technology works much more easily when you use it for the purpose for which it is desgined. If it was ever necessary to use tables for layout (because of browser shortcomings in the early 1990s) it certainly isn't now.

In the past, screen readers and other accessibility software had a difficult time handling tables in an efficient fashion. To some extent, this became handled in screen readers by the reader switching between a "table" mode and a "layout" mode based on what it saw inside the table. This was often wrong, and so the users had to manually switch the mode when navigating through tables. In any case, the large, often highly nested tables were, and to a large extent, are still very difficult to navigate through using a screen reader.

The same is true when divs or other block-level elements are used to recreate tables and are highly nested. The purpose of divs is to be used as a fomating and layout element, and as such, are intended used to hold similar information, and lay it out on the screen for visual users. When a screen reader encounters a page, it often ignores any layout information, both CSS based, as well as html attribute based(This isn't true for all screen readers, but for the most popular ones, like JAWS, Windows Eyes, and Orca for Linux it is).

为此，表格式数据，也就是逻辑上有意义的在二维或多维维度中排序的数据，具有某种标题，最好放在表中，并使用div来管理页面上内容的布局。(另一种思考“表格数据”的方式是尝试以图表形式绘制它……如果你不能，它可能不是最好的表示在一个表中)

Finally, with a table-based layout, in order to achieve a fine-grained control of the position of elements on the page, highly nested tables are often used. This has two effects: 1.) Increased code size for each page - Since navigation and common structure is often done with the tables, the same code is sent over the network for each request, whereas a div/css based layout pulls the css file over once, and then uses less wordy divs. 2.) Highly nested tables take much longer for the client's browser to render, leading to slightly slower load times.

在这两种情况下，“最后一英里”带宽的增加，以及更快的个人电脑缓解了这些因素，但它们仍然是许多网站存在的问题。

With all of this in mind, as others have said, tables are easier, because they are more grid-oriented, allowing for less thought. If the site in question is not expected to be around long, or will not be maintained, it might make sense to do what is easiest, because it might be the most cost effective. However, if the anticipated userbase might include a substantial portion of handicapped individuals, or if the site will be maintained by others for a long time, spending the time up front to do things in a concise, accessible way may payoff more in the end.