Flex有一个标签，用于在垂直列中布局内容。说实话，我不认为他们在布局/内容方面做得很好，但至少他们已经解决了这个问题。

像许多对CSS感到沮丧的人一样，我也到处寻找一个简单的答案，当我以为我找到了它时，我感到兴奋，然后当我在Chrome中打开页面时，我的希望破灭了。我肯定没有足够的技能说这是不可能的，但我还没有看到任何人提供样本代码供同行评审，明确地证明它可以可靠地完成。

那么，这个岛的CSS方面有人能推荐一种布局垂直列的心态/方法吗?我尝试过在第二行和第三行绝对定位，但我最终与到处重叠的东西和浮动有类似的问题，如果页面缩小。

如果这个问题有答案，我会欣喜若狂地做正确的事情——只要告诉我一些像“嘿，你试过**流:垂直|水平”这样的事情，我就完全不烦你了。

当您需要确保元素在布局中保持特定的物理关系时，请使用表格。对于数据，表格通常是最适合使用的布局元素，因为您不希望列以超出预期的方式包装，从而混淆了关联。

也有人可能会说，必须保持特定关系的非数据元素也应该呈现在表中。

灵活的css布局非常适合于移动设备、大屏幕、打印和其他显示类型的内容，但有时，内容必须以非常特定的方式显示，如果这要求屏幕阅读器无法轻松访问它，那么它可能是非常合理的。

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

这并不一定是一场战争。和谐是可能的。

使用一个表的整体布局和div在其中。

<table> 
    <tr><td colspan="3"><div>Top content</div></td></tr>
    <tr> 
        <td><div>Left navigation</div></td> 
        <td><div>Main content</div></td> 
        <td><div>Right navigation</div></td> 
    </tr>
    <tr><td colspan="3"><div>Bottom content</div></td></tr>
</table>

看，没有嵌套表。

我读过很多关于如何用divs实现这一点的文章，但从来没有发现任何事情，每次都没有问题。

一旦你有了整体结构，Divs是很棒的，但坦率地说，流体页眉/页脚和三个流体列是Divs的一大痛苦。Divs不是为流动性而设计的，所以为什么要使用它们呢?

注意，这种方法将在链接文本中提供100%的CSS遵从性

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。

In the past, screen readers and other accessibility software had a difficult time handling tables in an efficient fashion. To some extent, this became handled in screen readers by the reader switching between a "table" mode and a "layout" mode based on what it saw inside the table. This was often wrong, and so the users had to manually switch the mode when navigating through tables. In any case, the large, often highly nested tables were, and to a large extent, are still very difficult to navigate through using a screen reader.

The same is true when divs or other block-level elements are used to recreate tables and are highly nested. The purpose of divs is to be used as a fomating and layout element, and as such, are intended used to hold similar information, and lay it out on the screen for visual users. When a screen reader encounters a page, it often ignores any layout information, both CSS based, as well as html attribute based(This isn't true for all screen readers, but for the most popular ones, like JAWS, Windows Eyes, and Orca for Linux it is).

为此，表格式数据，也就是逻辑上有意义的在二维或多维维度中排序的数据，具有某种标题，最好放在表中，并使用div来管理页面上内容的布局。(另一种思考“表格数据”的方式是尝试以图表形式绘制它……如果你不能，它可能不是最好的表示在一个表中)

Finally, with a table-based layout, in order to achieve a fine-grained control of the position of elements on the page, highly nested tables are often used. This has two effects: 1.) Increased code size for each page - Since navigation and common structure is often done with the tables, the same code is sent over the network for each request, whereas a div/css based layout pulls the css file over once, and then uses less wordy divs. 2.) Highly nested tables take much longer for the client's browser to render, leading to slightly slower load times.

在这两种情况下，“最后一英里”带宽的增加，以及更快的个人电脑缓解了这些因素，但它们仍然是许多网站存在的问题。

With all of this in mind, as others have said, tables are easier, because they are more grid-oriented, allowing for less thought. If the site in question is not expected to be around long, or will not be maintained, it might make sense to do what is easiest, because it might be the most cost effective. However, if the anticipated userbase might include a substantial portion of handicapped individuals, or if the site will be maintained by others for a long time, spending the time up front to do things in a concise, accessible way may payoff more in the end.