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。
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。
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。
