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。


当前回答

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。

其他回答

一张桌子来布置也不错。但大多数情况下,仅靠一张表是无法得到所需的布局的。很快你就有了2到3个嵌套表。这变得非常麻烦。

It IS a LOT harder to read. That's not up to opinion. There's just more nested tags with no identifying marks on them. Separating content from presentation is a good thing because it allows you to focus on what you're doing. Mixing the two leads to bloated pages that are hard to read. CSS for styles allows your browser to cache the files and subsequent requests are much faster. This is HUGE. Tables lock you into a design. Sure, not everyone needs the flexibility of CSS Zen Garden, but I've never worked on a site where I didn't need to change the design a little bit here and there. It's much easier with CSS. Tables are hard to style. You don't have very much flexibility with them (i.e. you still need to add HTML attributes to fully control a table's styles)

我大概有4年没有用表格来处理非表格数据了。我没有回头。

我真的很想建议你阅读Andy Budd的《CSS Mastery》。棒极了。

图片在ecx.images-amazon.com http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41TH5NFKPEL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg

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。

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。

在维护内容的同时进行网站维护和设计检修(这一直都在发生,尤其是在电子商务中):

内容和设计通过表格混合在一起=更新内容和设计。

内容与设计分离=更新设计和少量内容。

如果我有自己的方式,我会将内容保存在PHP中,生成XML,转换为XSLT中的标记,并使用CSS和Javascript进行交互设计。对于Java方面的东西,JSP到JSTL来生成标记。

数据:使用表格。布局:使用样式。使用非常精简的浏览器(即没有样式,只有普通标记的Links 2或Lynx)可以最快地呈现表。