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。

我尽量避免使用TABLEs，但是当我们设计复杂的表单，混合了多种控件类型和不同的标题位置，并对分组进行了非常严格的控制时，使用DIVs是不可靠的，甚至几乎是不可能的。

现在，我不会说这些表单不能重新设计以更好地适应基于DIV的布局，但是对于其中的一些表单，我们的客户坚决不改变以前版本(用经典ASP编写的)的现有布局，因为它与用户熟悉的纸质表单相似。

因为表单的表示是动态的(其中某些部分的显示是基于案例的状态或用户的权限)，所以我们使用一组堆叠的div，每个div包含一个由逻辑分组的表单元素组成的TABLE。TABLE的每一列都被分类，这样CSS就可以控制它们。这样，我们就可以关闭表单的不同部分，而不会出现在div中不是表来换行的问题。

根据过去的经验，我必须选择DIV。即使在OOP中，主要目的也是减少对象之间的耦合，因此这个概念可以应用于DIVS和表。表用于保存数据，而不是围绕页面排列数据。DIV是专门设计用于在页面周围排列项目的，因此设计应该使用DIV，表应该用于存储数据。

此外，编辑由表格组成的网站是非常困难的(在我看来)

对我来说，一个巨大的问题是，表，特别是嵌套表，需要更长的时间来呈现比一个正确布局的css实现。(你可以让css一样慢)。

所有浏览器呈现css的速度都更快，因为每个div都是一个单独的元素，所以用户在阅读时可以加载屏幕。(对于庞大的数据集等)。我在那个实例中使用了css而不是表格，甚至没有处理布局。

嵌套的表(单元格中的表等)直到找到最后一个“/table”才会呈现到浏览器窗口。更糟糕的是，定义不清的表有时甚至无法呈现!或者当它发生的时候，事情就会不正常。(没有正确地与“TD”等共进)

我在大多数情况下使用表格，但当涉及到大数据和希望为最终用户快速呈现屏幕时，我尽最大努力利用CSS所提供的东西。

我将一个接一个地看你的论点，并试着指出其中的错误。

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。

It's not fallacious at all because HTML was designed intentionally. Misuse of an element might not be completely out of question (after all, new idioms have developed in other languages, as well) but possible negative implications have to be counterbalanced. Additionally, even if there were no arguments against misusing the <table> element today, there might be tomorrow because of the way browser vendors apply special treatment to the element. After all, they know that “<table> elements are for tabular data only” and might use this fact to improve the rendering engine, in the process subtly changing how <table>s behave, and thus breaking cases where it was previously misused.

那又怎样?我的老板在乎吗?我的用户关心吗?

视情况而定。你的老板是尖头发吗?那他可能不在乎。如果她有能力，那么她就会在乎，因为用户会在乎。

也许我或我的开发伙伴谁必须维护一个网页关心…表是否更难维护?我认为使用表格比使用div和css更容易。

大多数专业的web开发人员似乎反对你[需要引用]。事实上，表的可维护性较差，这是显而易见的。使用表格进行布局意味着更改公司布局实际上意味着更改每个页面。这可能会非常昂贵。另一方面，明智地将语义上有意义的HTML与CSS结合使用可能会将此类更改限制在CSS和所使用的图片上。

顺便说一下……为什么使用div或span可以很好地将内容与布局分开，而不是表格?只有div的良好布局通常需要大量嵌套的div。

深度嵌套<div>是反模式，就像表布局一样。优秀的网页设计师不需要太多这样的东西。另一方面，即使是这样深嵌套的div也没有很多表布局的问题。事实上，它们甚至可以通过逻辑地将内容划分为多个部分来构成语义结构。

代码的可读性 我觉得正好相反。大多数人懂html，很少人懂css。这是简单的。

“大多数人”不重要。专业人士。对于专业人士来说，表格布局比HTML + CSS带来更多的问题。这就像是说我不应该使用GVim或Emacs，因为记事本对大多数人来说更简单。或者我不应该使用LaTeX，因为MS Word对大多数人来说更简单。

SEO最好不要使用表格

我不知道这是不是真的，也不会把它作为一个论点，但它是合乎逻辑的。搜索引擎搜索相关数据。虽然表格数据当然可能是相关的，但它很少是用户搜索的内容。用户搜索页面标题或类似突出位置中使用的术语。因此，将表格内容排除在过滤之外，从而大幅减少处理时间(和成本!)是合乎逻辑的。

表比较慢。 必须插入一个额外的tbody元素。这对于现代网络浏览器来说是微不足道的。

额外的元素与表变慢无关。另一方面，表的布局算法要困难得多，浏览器通常必须等待整个表加载后才能开始布局内容。此外，缓存布局将不起作用(CSS可以很容易地缓存)。所有这些都在前面提到过。

向我展示一些使用表会显著降低页面速度的基准测试。

不幸的是，我没有任何基准测试数据。我自己也会感兴趣，因为这个论点确实缺乏一定的科学严谨性。

大多数需要升级的网站也需要新的内容(html)。一个新版本的网站只需要一个新的css文件的场景是不太可能的。

Not at all. I've worked on several cases where changing the design was simplified by a separation of content and design. It's often still necessary to change some HTML code but the changes will always be much more confined. Additionally, design changes must on occasion be made dynamically. Consider template engines such as the one used by the WordPress blogging system. Table layouts would literally kill this system. I've worked on a similar case for a commercial software. Being able to change the design without changing the HTML code was one of the business requirements.

Another thing. Table layout makes automated parsing of websites (screen scraping) much harder. This might sound trivial because, after all, who does it? I was surprised myself. Screen scraping can help a lot if the service in question doesn't offer a WebService alternative to access its data. I'm working in bioinformatics where this is a sad reality. Modern web techniques and WebServices have not reached most developers and often, screen scraping is the only way to automate the process of getting data. No wonder that many biologists still perform such tasks manually. For thousands of data sets.

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.