508符合性-屏幕阅读器能够理解你的标记。 等待呈现——直到</table>元素结束，表格才会在浏览器中呈现。

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。

事实上，这是一个激烈争论的问题，这证明了W3C未能预见到将尝试的布局设计的多样性。使用divs+css进行语义友好的布局是一个很好的概念，但实现的细节有很大的缺陷，实际上限制了创作的自由。

我曾试图将我们公司的一个网站从餐桌切换到餐桌，这让我非常头疼，以至于我完全放弃了投入其中的工作时间，回到餐桌上。为了获得垂直对齐的控制，我试图与我的跳水手搏斗，这让我受到了重大的心理问题的诅咒，只要这场辩论继续下去，我就永远不会动摇。

人们必须经常想出复杂而丑陋的变通办法来实现简单的设计目标(比如垂直对齐)，这一事实强烈地表明这些规则还不够灵活。如果规格已经足够了，那么为什么高调的网站(如SO)发现有必要使用表格和其他变通方法来改变规则呢?

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.

当我使用CSS设计我的布局时，我通常给每个主要部分都有自己的根(主体级别)div，并使用相对/绝对定位将其置于适当的位置。这比表更灵活一些，因为我不局限于可以用行和列表示的排列。

此外，如果我决定我想要重新安排布局(说我想要导航栏现在在右边)，我可以简单地去改变一个地方(CSS文件)的元素位置，HTML不需要改变。如果我对表执行此操作，我将不得不进入并找到信息，并进行大量属性修改和复制粘贴以获得相同的效果。

事实上，使用CSS，我甚至可以让我的用户选择他们想要的布局如何工作。只要内容区域的一般大小不改变，我完全可以使用一些PHP脚本来根据用户的偏好输出CSS，并允许他们根据自己的喜好重新排列站点。同样，对于表也是可以的，但是维护起来要困难得多。

最后，CSS提供了一个表永远无法提供的主要好处:基于显示设备重新格式化内容的能力。CSS允许我在打印机上使用与显示器上完全不同的样式集(包括位置、格式等)。这也可以扩展到其他媒体，一个很好的例子是Opera Show，它允许一个设计巧妙(非常标准)的CSS增强页面被视为幻灯片显示。

因此，最终，灵活性和管理才是真正的赢家。一般来说，CSS允许你对布局做更多的事情。基于表的布局在技术上没有什么不标准的，但为什么要限制自己呢?

Google gives very low priority to text content contained inside a table. I was giving some SEO advice to a local charity. In examining their website it was using tables to layout the site. Looking at each page, no matter what words - or combination of words - from their pages I used in the Google search box the pages would not come up in any of the top search pages. (However, by specifying the site in the search the page was returned.) One page was well copy written by normal standards to produce a good result in a search but still it didn't appear in any of the first pages of search results returned. (Note this text was within a table.) I then spotted a section of text on the pages which was in a div rather than a table. We put a few of the words from that div in the search engine. Result? It came in at No.2 in the search result.