Using tables for site layout verse CSS/2

[Dudsmack]

There seams to be a huge following that laying out a site in tables is the wrong way to do it, but why? The big argument against tables and for CSS/2 is that HTML is for 'storing data' not displaying it. But it seams to me that HTML is soley for formating/displaying data on the screen and that XML is to be used for storing the data (with a focus soley on the data and not the display).

CSS/2 is limited by lack of support yet tables are pretty much universally supported now. I know CSS3 is going to all but eliminate the use of tables being used for site layout, but that could easily take another 3-4 years to be standardized by the w3c and then have its support appear in most browsers.

I also know that tables *can* make the HTML hard to work with (espically when compared to css) but that's not enough of a deterent for me. Besides, if you look at frontpage 2003 using tables is not only encouraged but much, much easier.

So with all this in mind what is so bad w/ using tables for site layout?

[DaveSW]

You get better search engine rankings with css because you've got less junk crowding your pages.
You also have control over where the menu appears in the code, so you can put unimportant stuff like that to be read last by the search engine.
In addition you have a centralised file that controls all of your pages - so one change can be reflected in every page, cutting down on your work.

There's other stuff as well, but they're the most important for me.

[DaveSW]

Another important reason is download time. Instead of people having to download your table code for every page they visit, they download it once in the form of a css file.
It's also easier to change it using the edit command on WS_FTP.

[toicontien]

This topic has been covered a dozen times. The following thread should answer most of your questions.

http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10167&highlight=table