在HTML中，表格不应该用于布局，这似乎是普遍的观点。
Why?
我从来没有(老实说，很少)看到过支持这一点的有力论据。通常的答案是:
It's good to separate content from layoutBut this is a fallacious argument; Cliche Thinking. I guess it's true that using the table element for layout has little to do with tabular data. So what? Does my boss care? Do my users care?Perhaps me or my fellow developers who have to maintain a web page care... Is a table less maintainable? I think using a table is easier than using divs and CSS.By the way... why is using a div or a span good separation of content from layout and a table not? Getting a good layout with only divs often requires a lot of nested divs.
Readability of the codeI think it's the other way around. Most people understand HTML, few understand CSS.
It's better for SEO not to use tablesWhy? Can anybody show some evidence that it is? Or a statement from Google that tables are discouraged from an SEO perspective?
Tables are slower.An extra tbody element has to be inserted. This is peanuts for modern web browsers. Show me some benchmarks where the use of a table significantly slows down a page.
A layout overhaul is easier without tables, see css Zen Garden.Most web sites that need an upgrade need new content (HTML) as well. Scenarios where a new version of a web site only needs a new CSS file are not very likely. Zen Garden is a nice web site, but a bit theoretical. Not to mention its misuse of CSS.
我对使用divs + CSS而不是表的良好参数非常感兴趣。
下面是来自最近项目的一段html:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>{DYNAMIC(TITLE)}</title>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="./styles/base.css" />
</head>
<body>
<div id="header">
<h1><!-- Page title --></h1>
<ol id="navigation">
<!-- Navigation items -->
</ol>
<div class="clearfix"></div>
</div>
<div id="sidebar">
<!-- Sidebar content -->
</div>
<!-- Page content -->
<p id="footer"><!-- Footer content --></p>
</body>
</html>
这是与基于表格的布局相同的代码。
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<title>{DYNAMIC(TITLE)}</title>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
<meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="./styles/base.css" />
</head>
<body>
<table cellspacing="0">
<tr>
<td><!-- Page Title --></td>
<td>
<table>
<tr>
<td>Navitem</td>
<td>Navitem</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table>
<tr>
<td><!-- Page content --></td>
<td><!-- Sidebar content --></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">Footer</td>
</tr>
</table>
</body>
</html>
我在基于表格的布局中看到的唯一干净的地方是我对缩进的过度热情。我确信内容部分将有另外两个嵌入式表。
另一件需要考虑的事情是:文件大小。我发现基于表格的布局通常是CSS布局的两倍大。在我们的高速宽带上，这不是一个大问题，但在那些拨号调制解调器上。
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
一个例子:你想要居中
一个页面的主要内容区域，但在
为了把浮体装在里面，
它需要浮动。没有
CSS中的float: center。
这并不是在居中元素中“包含浮点数”的唯一方法。所以，这根本不是一个好的论点!
在某种程度上，“divs vs table”是一个错误的前提。
把一页快速地分成三列?说实话，表格更简单。但是没有专业人士将它们用于布局，因为它们将页面元素的位置锁定在页面中。
真正的争论是“由CSS完成的定位(最好是在远程文件中)”，而不是“在页面中由HTML完成的定位”。相对于后者，每个人都能看到前者的好处吗?
Size -- if your page layout is in the HTML, in the pages, it can't be cached, and it has to be repeated on every page. You will save enormous amounts of bandwidth if your layout is in a cached CSS file, not in the page.
Multiple developers can work on the same page at the same time -- I work on the HTML, other guy works on the CSS. No repository needed, no problems with over-writing, file locking etc.
Making changes is easier -- there will be problems with layout in different browsers, but you only have to fix one file, the CSS file, to sort them out.
Accessibility, as mentioned a lot previously. Tables assume a two-dimensional layout works for everyone. That's not how some users view your content and it's not how Google views your content.
考虑一下:
[ picture ] [ picture ] [ picture ]
[ caption ] [ caption ] [ caption ]
表示包含6个单元格的表中的两行。能看到二维表格布局的人会在每张图片下看到标题。但是使用语音合成，或者PDA，以及搜索引擎蜘蛛，那是
picture picture picture caption caption caption
有了表格，这种关系就明显消失了。
div和CSS是否更适合在HTML页面上简单地布局矩形以在最短的时间内实现给定的设计?不，他们可能不是。但我不是在快速布局矩形来实现给定的设计。我想的是更大的前景。
