另外，别忘了，表格在移动浏览器上的渲染效果并不好。当然，iPhone拥有强大的浏览器，但并不是每个人都有iPhone。对于现代浏览器来说，表呈现可能是花生，但对于移动浏览器来说，它却是一堆西瓜。

我个人发现很多人使用了太多的<div>标记，但如果适当，它可以非常干净且易于阅读。你提到人们阅读CSS比阅读表格更困难;就“代码”而言，这可能是真的;但是在读取内容方面(查看>源代码)，用样式表理解结构要比用表容易得多。

我认为没有人会在意一个网站是如何设计/实现的，当它运行得很好并且运行得很快的时候。

我在HTML标记中同时使用“table”和“div”/“span”标记。

让我给你一些我为什么选择跳水的理由:

for a table you have to write at least 3 tags (table, tr, td, thead, tbody), for a nice design, sometimes you have a lot of nested tables I like to have components on the page. I don't know how to explain exactly but will try. Suppose you need a logo and this have to be placed, just a small piece of it, over the next page content. Using tables you have to cut 2 images and put this into 2 different TDs. Using DIVs you can have a simple CSS to arange it as you want. Which solution do you like best? when more then 3 nested tables for doing something I am thinking to redesign it using DIVs

但是我仍然在使用表格:

表格数据 扩展自我的内容 快速解决方案(原型)，因为DIVs盒子模型在每个浏览器上是不同的，因为许多生成器使用表格等

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.

Layout should be easy. The fact that there are articles written on how to achieve a dynamic three column layout with header and footer in CSS shows that it is a poor layout system. Of course you can get it to work, but there are literally hundreds of articles online about how to do it. There are pretty much no such articles for a similar layout with tables because it's patently obvious. No matter what you say against tables and in favor of CSS, this one fact undoes it all: a basic three column layout in CSS is often called "The Holy Grail".

如果这不能让你说“WTF”，那么你现在真的需要放下酷爱饮料了。

我喜欢CSS。它提供了惊人的样式选项和一些很酷的定位工具，但作为一个布局引擎，它是有缺陷的。需要某种类型的动态网格定位系统。一个直接的方法来对齐多个轴上的盒子，而不知道他们的大小。我不在乎你叫它<table>或<gridlayout>或其他什么，但这是CSS中缺少的一个基本布局特性。

更大的问题是，由于不承认有缺失的特性，CSS狂热者一直在阻碍CSS的发展。如果CSS能像世界上其他布局引擎一样提供像样的多轴网格定位，我很乐意停止使用表格。(你应该意识到这个问题已经被除了W3C之外的所有人用多种语言解决过很多次了，对吧?没有人否认这样一个功能是有用的。)

叹息。足够的通风。去吧，把头埋进沙子里。

一般来说，表并不比CSS更容易或更易于维护。然而，在一些特定的布局问题中，表确实是最简单和最灵活的解决方案。

在表示标记和CSS支持相同类型的设计的情况下，CSS显然是更可取的，没有人会认为字体标记比在CSS中指定排版更好，因为CSS提供了与字体标记相同的功能，但以一种更干净的方式。

The issue with tables, however, is basically that the table-layout model in CSS is not supported in Microsoft Internet Explorer. Tables and CSS are therefore not equivalent in power. The missing part is the grid-like behavior of tables, where the edges of cells align both vertically and horizontally, while cells still expand to contain their content. This behavior is not easy to achieve in pure CSS without hardcoding some dimensions, which makes the design rigid and brittle (as long as we have to support Internet Explorer - in other browsers this is easliy achieved by using display:table-cell).

因此，这并不是一个表或CSS更可取的问题，而是一个认识到使用表可以使布局更灵活的具体情况的问题。

不使用表的最重要原因是可访问性。Web内容可访问性指南http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/建议不要使用表格进行布局。如果您担心可访问性(在某些情况下，您可能有法律义务这样做)，即使表更简单，也应该使用CSS。请注意，您总是可以用CSS创建与表相同的布局，这可能只是需要更多的工作。

看起来你只是习惯了桌子，仅此而已。 将布局放在表格中会限制你的布局。用CSS你可以移动位，看看http://csszengarden.com/ 不，布局通常不需要很多嵌套的div。

没有表格的布局和适当的语义HTML更干净，因此更容易阅读。 为什么不理解CSS的人要尝试阅读它呢?如果有人认为自己是web开发人员，那么对CSS的良好掌握是必须的。

SEO的好处来自于将最重要的内容放在页面上方的能力 拥有更好的内容与标记比率。

http://www.hotdesign.com/seybold/