无论如何，这并不是一个明确的论点，但是对于CSS，你可以使用相同的标记并根据介质改变布局，这是一个很好的优势。例如，对于打印页面，您可以安静地抑制导航，而不必创建打印机友好的页面。

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.

通过仍然使用表格布局，我们错过了在div方面的创新。

许多人提出了解决方案，使创建布局的divs更容易。最流行的是网格架构。有基于此体系结构的动态布局生成器。查看: 1) 960。Gs和(http://grids.heroku.com/) 2)蓝图 最近也是如此。

在架构和表格布局工具方面，我还没有看到太多创新。

我想说，撇开所有的理论，实际上布局与CSS和div更快。相反，在这个方向上的创新使它变得更容易。

为了回应“表格更慢”的论点——你考虑的是渲染时间，这是一个错误的度量。通常情况下，开发人员会编写一个巨大的表格来完成页面的整个布局——这大大增加了要下载的页面的大小。不管你喜不喜欢，仍然有大量的拨号用户。

参见:过度使用ViewState

div和CSS的定位允许一个更灵活的设计，导致更容易修改和模板的网页。

也就是说，如果你对灵活性不感兴趣，那么使用一个表而不是一些由CSS变形成表的div绝对是更容易和更快的。我倾向于在设计时使用表格，只是为了更快地让它看起来正确。

布局的灵活性 想象一下，您正在创建一个带有大量缩略图的页面。 div: 如果你把每个缩略图放在DIV中，向左浮动，可能一行有10个缩略图。让窗口变窄，BAM -它是一行6个，或者2个，或者其他合适的。 表: 你必须明确地说一行中有多少单元格。如果窗口太窄，用户必须水平滚动。

可维护性 和上面的情况一样。现在要向第三行添加三个缩略图。 div: 把它们加进去。布局会自动调整。 表: 将新单元格粘贴到第三行。哦!现在那里的商品太多了。从那一行切一些，放在第四行。现在那里的商品太多了。从那一行切一些……(等) (当然，如果您使用服务器端脚本生成行和单元格，这可能不是问题。)