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?

我想补充的是，基于div的布局更容易维护、发展和重构。只是在CSS中做了一些改变来重新排序元素，这就完成了。根据我的经验，重新设计使用表的布局是一场噩梦(如果有嵌套的表，则会更糟)。

从语义的角度来看，代码也有意义。

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。

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)。

CSS布局通常在可访问性方面要好得多，前提是内容以自然的顺序出现，并且没有样式表也有意义。不仅仅是屏幕阅读器难以适应基于表格的布局:它们也使移动浏览器更难正确呈现页面。

此外，使用基于div的布局，你可以很容易地用打印样式表做一些很酷的事情，比如从打印页面中排除页眉、页脚和导航——我认为这是不可能的，或者至少很难用基于表格的布局做到这一点。

If you're doubting that separation of content from layout is easier with divs than with tables, take a look at the div-based HTML at CSS Zen Garden, see how changing the stylesheets can drastically change the layout, and think about whether you could achieve the same variety of layouts if the HTML was table based... If you're doing a table-based layout, you're unlikely to be using CSS to control all the spacing and padding in the cells (if you were, you'd almost certainly find it easier to use floating divs etc. in the first place). Without using CSS to control all that, and because of the fact that tables specify the left-to-right and top-to bottom order of things in the HTML, tables tend to mean that your layout becomes very much fixed in the HTML.

实际上，我认为完全改变一个基于div和css的设计而不改变div是非常困难的。然而，使用基于div和css的布局，就更容易调整不同块之间的间距以及它们的相对大小。

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.