Css-Layout vs Table-Layout

[Habib]

Hi,

After I designed my page (using tables), while I was surfing the web I
considered a professional looking web site which had been used DIV tags
instead of tables, with many css classes. Designing in div layers is
much more time consuming and more skillful. so there should be a good
reason for using table-less layout. I searched the group and I found
some topics. but I still have a few Questions as follows:

- I've read in a post (2003) "using tables to display tabular data is
right but never use them to layout structuring." but why?

- As I've got curious I visited some famous websites and I checked the
code. for example fifaworldcup.com uses tables for layout, but css
<div>, <ul> and <li> for header menu items. so combined both of them. I
mixed up! if div is good for menu how it's not perfect for the other
parts?

- Which one is perfect for search engines ranking? Does it affect?

- Another thing was that they had been used 10 tables with 5 rows each,
while they could put all tabular data in a single table with 50 rows.
does it have any benefit (using several tables instead of one I mean)?


Thanks a lot!

Habib

 

[David Dorward]

After I designed my page (using tables), while I was surfing the web I
considered a professional looking web site which had been used DIV tags
instead of tables, with many css classes. Designing in div layers is
much more time consuming and more skillful.

Not really. Any difference is exaggerated by there being a lot of
people who know how to hack tables into acting like layout tools, and
fewer who know CSS well enough.

- I've read in a post (2003) "using tables to display tabular data is
right but never use them to layout structuring." but why?

1. Claming a relationship between bits of data where no such
relationship exists is a lie.

2. Not all browsers present data visually

- As I've got curious I visited some famous websites and I checked the
code. for example fifaworldcup.com uses tables for layout, but css
<div>, <ul> and <li> for header menu items. so combined both of them. I
mixed up! if div is good for menu how it's not perfect for the other
parts?

See above

- Which one is perfect for search engines ranking? Does it affect?

In theory, semantic markup is better food for search engines.

In practise, search engines don't make public their algorithums so its
hard to say.

- Another thing was that they had been used 10 tables with 5 rows each,
while they could put all tabular data in a single table with 50 rows.
does it have any benefit (using several tables instead of one I mean)?

Use whatever markup best describes the data. Any rendering speedups
caused by chopping a table up could likely be gained through
table-layout: fixed as well.

 

[JDS]

After I designed my page (using tables), while I was surfing the web I
considered a professional looking web site which had been used DIV tags
instead of tables, with many css classes. Designing in div layers is
much more time consuming and more skillful.

False. Popular misconception that designing layout with CSS is harder
than tables. It is not harder, it is just "different" and requires a
different approach.

so there should be a good
reason for using table-less layout. I searched the group and I found
some topics. but I still have a few Questions as follows:

- I've read in a post (2003) "using tables to display tabular data is
right but never use them to layout structuring." but why?

Well, "never" is probably a bit over-zealous. Take the saying, "never say
never" for example. "Never" is always false in a true-or-false quiz. etc.

So change "never" to "as much as possible, try really really hard to not
use"

As far as the "proper" use of tables, well, tables are for tables. If you
have data that needs to be presented as a table to retain its semantic
meaning, then use a table. If you are using a table merely to position
elements on a page, then use CSS layout instead.

- As I've got curious I visited some famous websites and I checked the
code. for example fifaworldcup.com uses tables for layout, but css
<div>, <ul> and <li> for header menu items. so combined both of them. I
mixed up! if div is good for menu how it's not perfect for the other
parts?

Just because a website is "famous" does not mean they do things
"correctly" as far as their HTML markup goes! That is another big
misconception. "Well, <big, huge, popular website> codes HTML and CSS
like this! It *must* be correct!"

High quality examples of CSS layout in large corporate or "famous"
websites are very hard to find. I think this stems from the "anyone can be
a web designer/developer/programmer" mentality that arose through the
'90s. "Oh! I have an HTML book and a computer! I am now a professional web
developer/designer"

Unfortunately, web browsers have been designed to be highly flexible in
their HTML rendering, which, IMO, only has promoted poor HTML coding
practices over the years.

- Which one is perfect for search engines ranking? Does it affect?

Search engine ranking should not be affected too much by tables vs css
layout, although one could argue that a smart CSS layout will only improve
your readability to search engines and thus improve your ranking.

- Another thing was that they had been used 10 tables with 5 rows each,
while they could put all tabular data in a single table with 50 rows.
does it have any benefit (using several tables instead of one I mean)?

Maybe they are retarded? Maybe they have a phobia of numbers larger than
10? Maybe they wanted to have header rows visible no matter where you
were through the table? Maybe their brother, Louie, used a Timex Sinclair
to code the HTML, the Sinclair noted for being unable to use numbers
larger than 10? Maybe they have *extremely* short term memory loss and
every time they got to the tenth row they had forgotten that they had
already done ten rows and they restarted the table? Maybe in Germany,
host of the World Cup, the number ten is revered as a holy symbol of World
Cup Soccer perfection?

allright, later...

 

[Philip]

Hi,

After I designed my page (using tables), while I was surfing the web I
considered a professional looking web site which had been used DIV tags
instead of tables, with many css classes. Designing in div layers is
much more time consuming and more skillful. so there should be a good
reason for using table-less layout. I searched the group and I found
some topics. but I still have a few Questions as follows:

- I've read in a post (2003) "using tables to display tabular data is
right but never use them to layout structuring." but why?
- As I've got curious I visited some famous websites and I checked the
code. for example fifaworldcup.com uses tables for layout, but css
<div>, <ul> and <li> for header menu items. so combined both of them. I
mixed up! if div is good for menu how it's not perfect for the other
parts?

- Which one is perfect for search engines ranking? Does it affect?

- Another thing was that they had been used 10 tables with 5 rows each,
while they could put all tabular data in a single table with 50 rows.
does it have any benefit (using several tables instead of one I mean)?

Hullo Habib,
This same topic was discussed over in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html just last week. The thread is called
"tablles vs css". Here's a link:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/browse
_frm/thread/58f30d17421a21a6/1eca2bfbf251215d?#1eca2bfbf251215d

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

Hi,

After I designed my page (using tables), while I was surfing the web I
considered a professional looking web site which had been used DIV tags
instead of tables, with many css classes. Designing in div layers is
much more time consuming and more skillful. so there should be a good
reason for using table-less layout. I searched the group and I found
some topics. but I still have a few Questions as follows:

- I've read in a post (2003) "using tables to display tabular data is
right but never use them to layout structuring." but why?

- As I've got curious I visited some famous websites and I checked the
code. for example fifaworldcup.com uses tables for layout, but css
<div>, <ul> and <li> for header menu items. so combined both of them. I
mixed up! if div is good for menu how it's not perfect for the other
parts?

- Which one is perfect for search engines ranking? Does it affect?

- Another thing was that they had been used 10 tables with 5 rows each,
while they could put all tabular data in a single table with 50 rows.
does it have any benefit (using several tables instead of one I mean)?


Thanks a lot!

Habib

In addition to what others have said, don't get into the trap of
replacing bloated tables with bloated divs. Use the right tool for the
job. If it's a list, like a menu, then use an unordered list. If it's a
heading, use a heading. If it's a paragraph, use a paragraph. If it's
tabular data, then use a table. If you want to make a division, use a
div, if you want to style a small piece of markup a certain way, use a
span.

Remember that the WWW is not a piece of paper and that you are not in
control of what the user sees, hears, etc. All you can do is suggest.
The more rigid you become, the more your design will break.

 

[TC]

This same topic was discussed over in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html just last week.
The thread is called "tablles vs css". Here's a link:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp...17421a21a6/1eca2bfbf251215d?#1eca2bfbf251215d

Hi Philip

IMHO, that thread is not convincing.

Regarding the specific advantages of a CSS-based layout, over a
tables-based one, by my count, of the 16 replies (excluding the OP's
own reply) :

- 8 replies did not cite *any* specific advantages; (#s 2, 5, 6, 11,
12, 13, 16, 17 below)

- 3 replies *disagreed* that tables should never be used for layout (7,
10, 15), and

- 5 replies cited a total of only 3 specific advantages: power &
capability; ease of maintenance; and compliance with current/W3C
standards. (3, 8, 9, 14, 18)

My own site uses tables for page-layout. I do intend to change it to
use CSS, when I redesign the site to move the content to the middle
column of the screen.

However, I also use tables in various places within the pages, to
lay-out certain text and graphics. I'm not convinced that I should go
to the trouble of changing all those. They are *not* a maintenance
problem, and I'm not convinced that the CSS alternative would be any
simpler.

Here's a very simple example: http://102673.atspace.com/tables.htm
What would be a specific, real-world benefit of changing that table to
DIV's + CSS instead?

"It seperates content from presentation" is not - in and of itself - a
benefit. If it was, then, I could equally well say that "tables should
*always* be used for layout", because "this keeps content and
presentation together"!

Any thoughts?

TC (MVP MSAccess)
http://tc2.atspace.com



[thread analysis follows]

=== 2: Chaddy2222 ===
No advantages cited.


=== 3: Philip Semanchuk ===
One specific advantage cited:
- it's much more capable and sophisticated than a tables-based layout.


=== 4: OP ===
(N/A)


=== 5: Sherm Pendley ===
No advantages cited.


=== 6: axlq ===
No advantages cited.


=== 7: Sherm Pendley ===
DISAGREES that tables should never be used for layout:
"if you intend to introduce divs that are used purely for
presentational purposes and have no semantic meaning, then I'd say
there's no point. Misused divs are neither better nor worse than
misused tables."


=== 8: Jim Moe ===
One specific advantage cited:
"Ultimately the best reason to learning HTML+CSS is maintenance. It
truly is a lot easier to make even major changes in appearance when a
site uses HTML+CSS as they are intended.


=== 9: Jack ===
Says that "separating content and presentation is a benefit of using
CSS" - but doesn't say why. Let's be kind, and assume that he said:
"... which makes it easier to maintain and enhance". One specific
advantage.


=== 10: Michael Vilain ===
DISAGREES that tables should never be used for layout:
"if I want a set of three gifs next to each other with caption text
underneath, it's faster and easier (and works on more browsers) to use
a table"


=== 11: Richard Gration ===
No advantages cited.


=== 12: Matt Silberstein ===
No advantages cited.


=== 13: Jim Moe ===
No advantages cited.


=== 14: mens libertina ===
Three specific advantages cited:
- "it is what most(?) people are doing these days". (weak)
- "it is *the* accepted standard that is put forth by the W3C, and as
such, it marks you as a professional."
- "it makes maintainence easier by focusing your design changes to one
page (the style sheet) rather than every single page."


=== 15: Chris F.A. Johnson ===
DISAGREES that tables should never be used for layout:
- There are instances where tables are the better way to accomplish
one's design.
- The ability of tables to adapt themselves to whatever width is
required makes them often indispensible.
- Many CSS hacks make the "umaintainable" tables look like child's
play. [ie. the table might be *easier* to maintain that a CSS
equivalent]


=== 16: Andy Dingley ===
No advantages cited.


=== 17: Chris F.A. Johnson ===
No advantages cited.


=== 18: mens libertina ===
One (weak) advantage cited:
"you should know what is currently popular if you want to be accepted
as a knowledgeable person"
[Knowing what is currently popular, is not an argument for *using* it!]


(END)

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Hi Philip

IMHO, that thread is not convincing.

Regarding the specific advantages of a CSS-based layout, over a
tables-based one, by my count, of the 16 replies (excluding the OP's
own reply) :

Briefly, 'cuz this stinks of troll.

1) Lighter code. *If* done properly HTML markup with attached CSS
stylesheets can significantly reduce the amount of actually code because
you do not have to infuse all the markup with presentational markup and
attributes that are repeated over and over for each table cell.

2) Flexibility. If you wish to change the styling or even presentational
layouts say move the navigation from the left to the top or right or
whatever. If in a table cell the whole page must be changed to move the
cell content whereas if the navigation was in the list it cam be
floated, put inline or block simply by change the ONE stylesheet. The
former may require calling every page on the site.

3) Accessibility. With stylesheets and tableless designs your can have
alternated stylesheets for different browsers, and viewer. Example, I
use a flyout CSS menu. Some folks with disabilities may have
difficulties in working the menu, your can offer a alternate sheet the
make the menu a static indented list that is easier to traverse. Or have
a very pretty site with backgrounds and stylish insets and sidebars you
could have the simpler alternate stylesheet the simplifies the layout,
upset the font-size and increases the contrast for low-vision access.

3a) I use on a practical note, a print stylesheet that does things like
remove decorative elements, and navbars, underlines on links(makes no
sense for a printed documents), fancy formatting and restricted margins.
Damn I hate website that have stupid table layouts that make 2 pages
of information balloon to 8 because of the content is squished in a
narrow column and other useful room is wasted on navbar cell and advert
banners...

4) Maintainability. With a different mindset with separation of markup
and stylesheet many times may only need to change one or the other. If
you use the cascade in CSS, and not table layout with umpteen divs spans
classes and use broader classes and use selectors you can achieve very
fine granularity in your styling without having to burden your markup
with "container-itis" or "class-itis". Nothing can be worse then
reworking a website with nesting table layouts, rowspans, colspans,
image slices, etc...

 

[Philip]

Hi Philip

IMHO, that thread is not convincing.

Hi TC,
What's wrong with a smorgasbord of opinions? =)

Regarding the specific advantages of a CSS-based layout, over a
tables-based one, by my count, of the 16 replies (excluding the OP's
own reply) :

- 8 replies did not cite *any* specific advantages; (#s 2, 5, 6, 11,
12, 13, 16, 17 below)

- 3 replies *disagreed* that tables should never be used for layout (7,
10, 15), and

- 5 replies cited a total of only 3 specific advantages: power &
capability; ease of maintenance; and compliance with current/W3C
standards. (3, 8, 9, 14, 18)

Interesting (and thorough) anaylsis. Some of the no-advantages-cited
posts were more meta-comments than anything, but I get your point.
Again, I think it is healthy to be exposed to a number of different
viewpoints.

My own site uses tables for page-layout. I do intend to change it to
use CSS, when I redesign the site to move the content to the middle
column of the screen.

However, I also use tables in various places within the pages, to
lay-out certain text and graphics. I'm not convinced that I should go
to the trouble of changing all those. They are *not* a maintenance
problem, and I'm not convinced that the CSS alternative would be any
simpler.

Here's a very simple example: http://102673.atspace.com/tables.htm
What would be a specific, real-world benefit of changing that table to
DIV's + CSS instead?

Well, I think the recommendation would be to change it to UL/LIs rather
than just generic DIVs. One advantage of this approach would be that you
could change the list to a numbered list by just changing the UL to an
OL. Also, using TABLE for layout means a lot of table tags on one's
pages. I find it easier to use UL for lists and TABLE for tables; it
makes the HTML and CSS a little more self-explanatory. I realize that
neither of these are strong arguments. I think there's also a problem
with browsers not being able to draw a table until all of the rows are
loaded. If true, that's a solid disadvantage of a table-based approach.

"It seperates content from presentation" is not - in and of itself - a
benefit. If it was, then, I could equally well say that "tables should
*always* be used for layout", because "this keeps content and
presentation together"!

Any thoughts?

It is easier for automated tools to process content when it is separated
from presentation, hence the value of something like XML+XSLT. For
someone making a Web page about his pet fish Robert or a vacation to
Mexico, the separation of content from presentation is a pretty hard
sell. Me, I am somewhere in between. I make some Web pages that are
about as personal and trivial as one about a pet fish. But I earn my
living by programming, and when I work on a project where multiple
authors (who haven't a clue about HTML) work on the same document and
those documents needs to be rendered from OpenOffice XML to HTML, and
some PHB suddenly decides that they also need to be available in PDF
format doubleplus ASAP, then I'd better be comfortable and familiar with
separating content from presentation. (Apologies for the EUA --
Excessive Use of Acronyms.) I want it to be second nature, and it will
only become that if I practice at it.

Cheers

[thread analysis follows]

=== 2: Chaddy2222 ===
No advantages cited.


=== 3: Philip Semanchuk ===
One specific advantage cited:
- it's much more capable and sophisticated than a tables-based layout.


=== 4: OP ===
(N/A)


=== 5: Sherm Pendley ===
No advantages cited.


=== 6: axlq ===
No advantages cited.


=== 7: Sherm Pendley ===
DISAGREES that tables should never be used for layout:
"if you intend to introduce divs that are used purely for
presentational purposes and have no semantic meaning, then I'd say
there's no point. Misused divs are neither better nor worse than
misused tables."


=== 8: Jim Moe ===
One specific advantage cited:
"Ultimately the best reason to learning HTML+CSS is maintenance. It
truly is a lot easier to make even major changes in appearance when a
site uses HTML+CSS as they are intended.


=== 9: Jack ===
Says that "separating content and presentation is a benefit of using
CSS" - but doesn't say why. Let's be kind, and assume that he said:
"... which makes it easier to maintain and enhance". One specific
advantage.


=== 10: Michael Vilain ===
DISAGREES that tables should never be used for layout:
"if I want a set of three gifs next to each other with caption text
underneath, it's faster and easier (and works on more browsers) to use
a table"


=== 11: Richard Gration ===
No advantages cited.


=== 12: Matt Silberstein ===
No advantages cited.


=== 13: Jim Moe ===
No advantages cited.


=== 14: mens libertina ===
Three specific advantages cited:
- "it is what most(?) people are doing these days". (weak)
- "it is *the* accepted standard that is put forth by the W3C, and as
such, it marks you as a professional."
- "it makes maintainence easier by focusing your design changes to one
page (the style sheet) rather than every single page."


=== 15: Chris F.A. Johnson ===
DISAGREES that tables should never be used for layout:
- There are instances where tables are the better way to accomplish
one's design.
- The ability of tables to adapt themselves to whatever width is
required makes them often indispensible.
- Many CSS hacks make the "umaintainable" tables look like child's
play. [ie. the table might be *easier* to maintain that a CSS
equivalent]


=== 16: Andy Dingley ===
No advantages cited.


=== 17: Chris F.A. Johnson ===
No advantages cited.


=== 18: mens libertina ===
One (weak) advantage cited:
"you should know what is currently popular if you want to be accepted
as a knowledgeable person"
[Knowing what is currently popular, is not an argument for *using* it!]


(END)

 

[TC]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Briefly, 'cuz this stinks of troll.

Geez, check my bio & see if I look like a troll.

Further comments below.

1) Lighter code. *If* done properly HTML markup with attached CSS
stylesheets can significantly reduce the amount of actually code because
you do not have to infuse all the markup with presentational markup and
attributes that are repeated over and over for each table cell.

2) Flexibility. If you wish to change the styling or even presentational
layouts say move the navigation from the left to the top or right or
whatever. If in a table cell the whole page must be changed to move the
cell content whereas if the navigation was in the list it cam be
floated, put inline or block simply by change the ONE stylesheet. The
former may require calling every page on the site.

3) Accessibility. With stylesheets and tableless designs your can have
alternated stylesheets for different browsers, and viewer. Example, I
use a flyout CSS menu. Some folks with disabilities may have
difficulties in working the menu, your can offer a alternate sheet the
make the menu a static indented list that is easier to traverse. Or have
a very pretty site with backgrounds and stylish insets and sidebars you
could have the simpler alternate stylesheet the simplifies the layout,
upset the font-size and increases the contrast for low-vision access.

3a) I use on a practical note, a print stylesheet that does things like
remove decorative elements, and navbars, underlines on links(makes no
sense for a printed documents), fancy formatting and restricted margins.
Damn I hate website that have stupid table layouts that make 2 pages
of information balloon to 8 because of the content is squished in a
narrow column and other useful room is wasted on navbar cell and advert
banners...

4) Maintainability. With a different mindset with separation of markup
and stylesheet many times may only need to change one or the other. If
you use the cascade in CSS, and not table layout with umpteen divs spans
classes and use broader classes and use selectors you can achieve very
fine granularity in your styling without having to burden your markup
with "container-itis" or "class-itis". Nothing can be worse then
reworking a website with nesting table layouts, rowspans, colspans,
image slices, etc...

I note & agree with all your points above. There are obvously
signifcant advantages in using CSS effectively. In particular, (3) and
(3a) were not mentioned in the cited thread. I'll need to do (3a)
myself, because my current site does not print properly.

*But*, my question was in reference to this specific example table:
http://102673.atspace.com/tables.htm

My question was, what would be a specific, real-world benefit of
changing *that table* to DIV's + CSS?

Personally, I just can't see it.

1) Lighter code

does not apply unless you say that you could replcate that layout using
DIVs + CSS with less lines of code than the table. I'm quite prepared
to be convinced - but is that possble?

2) Flexibility

does not really apply. The table looks exactly how I want it to. I do
not envisage having to change it. I *do* envisage changing my overall
page design, and for that reason, I plan to change the page-layout from
tables, to CSS. But when I do that, the example table will just appear
at some new point on the page; it won't need any changes itself.

3) Accessibility
3a) I use on a practical note, a print stylesheet

are not relevant to my example.

4) Maintainability

again, I don't see that the DIVs + CSS solution would be any simpler to
maintain, than the table.

Which of those advantages do you argue would apply to my specific
example?

TC (MVP MSAccess)
http://tc2.atspace.com

 

[TC]

Hi Philp

What's wrong with a smorgasbord of opinions? =)

Nothing at all. Bring 'em on!

Well, I think the recommendation would be to change it to UL/LIs rather
than just generic DIVs. One advantage of this approach would be that you
could change the list to a numbered list by just changing the UL to an OL.

I'm not sure that I understand you. I don't *want* that table to look
like a list. I want it to look exactly the way that it currently does.
Are you saying that I could get the same look, by changing the info to
lists & then styling those lists? If so, what would be the specific
advantage? IOW, why would I bother? Wouldn't I just get lots of LIs
(versus lots of TDs)?

It is easier for automated tools to process content when it is separated
from presentation, hence the value of something like XML+XSLT.

I've had one brush with XSL. I don't intend to have another! :-(

Thanks for all your other comments, which I have read & digested. It's
now 5am here, so I am off to bed & will get back to this thread in 12
hours or so.

Cheers,
TC (MVP MSAccess)
http://tc2.atspace.com

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:



Geez, check my bio & see if I look like a troll.

Not unheard of when this subject is raised, which is often.

*But*, my question was in reference to this specific example table:
http://102673.atspace.com/tables.htm

My question was, what would be a specific, real-world benefit of
changing *that table* to DIV's + CSS?

As with anything in life, no 1 unbreakable rule defines the universe. In
your specific case one could argue that it is tabular data

task | solutions
-----+-----------


or a list as a Q&A. Out of a table you would be free to dress it up a
but if you wish but it certainly is suitable as a table. Now your main
page is another issue....

TC (MVP MSAccess)
http://tc2.atspace.com

The OP was speaking to a more general usage situation than your one
example. More to what you have done on your main page.

 

[Adrienne Boswell]

*But*, my question was in reference to this specific example table:
http://102673.atspace.com/tables.htm

My question was, what would be a specific, real-world benefit of
changing *that table* to DIV's + CSS?

Personally, I just can't see it.

In this specific case, IMHO, a table IS the right choice because of the
structure of the data. There is a relationship which makes a table the
right tool for the job. That table could easily be broadened to 3 columns.

 

[dorayme]

Designing in div layers is

False. Popular misconception that designing layout with CSS is harder
than tables. It is not harder, it is just "different" and requires a
different approach.

If you are talking humans, it is an arguable point. It is still
probably wrong, tables are not so counter-intuitive for visual
layout. If you are talking non-human (software to convert visual
layouts to CSS and HTML), I would bet on you being wrong.

I am not talking morals here, nor advocating tables for layout,
just objective testable real-time probabilities.

 

[dorayme]

In
your specific case one could argue that it is tabular data

task | solutions
-----+-----------

Yes, I noticed this...

There is always a bit of confusion on this topic between what
would be best in principle, especially for large sites that need
maintaining and the smaller website maintained by the owner. It
is hopeless trying to deal with the issue of css v tables on
examples where the benefits of 'good practice' do not stand out.
And they don't stand out in all jobs. Simple as that really...

 

[Philip]

I'm not sure that I understand you. I don't *want* that table to look
like a list. I want it to look exactly the way that it currently does.
Are you saying that I could get the same look, by changing the info to
lists & then styling those lists? If so, what would be the specific
advantage? IOW, why would I bother? Wouldn't I just get lots of LIs
(versus lots of TDs)?

As others have pointed out and you yourself have acknowledged, that data
already lends itself pretty well to tabular presentation. However, if
you did it with styled lists instead, the advantages that I pointed out
in my previous method would still apply. In addition, I think it'd be
easier to change the look of the page using CSS. If you decided you
wanted a column left-aligned rather than centered, for instance, you
could either change the style in one place or the align property on each
TD. A text editor's search & replace makes the latter function pretty
easy, but you have to be careful not to accidentally change the align
property on any other elements in that file.

Or suppose your HTML was being generated by a script written by someone
else, and you were the graphic designer charged with making it look
pretty. I think you'd find the list & div version easier to work with.

Now, your question was not a theoretical one but a practical one of why
*you* would want to convert *that* particular page, and I don't have a
compelling argument. Tables aren't bad as long as they're used to
present tabular data. I use them here:
http://nikitathespider.com/articles/RobotsTxt.html

I've had one brush with XSL. I don't intend to have another! :-(

I've had the same reaction, but for me it was a result of using the
wrong tool for the job.

Thanks for all your other comments, which I have read & digested. It's
now 5am here, so I am off to bed & will get back to this thread in 12
hours or so.

Sleep well!

 

[Wÿrm]

Here's a very simple example: http://102673.atspace.com/tables.htm
What would be a specific, real-world benefit of changing that table to
DIV's + CSS instead?

In that case I do not see any reason why it should be something else than
table. In my books that's tabular data all right, and could be also just
three columns instead of two with headings task | why | how.

<snip>