advantages and disadvantages of using a table and css formatting

because both the table and the and elements have separate borders. I thought my question BTW why css layout over table layout' was clear from the context but apparently not. Itll be interesting to see how it develops and also what kind of browser support it gets. There are many more people who dont have those problems. the ability to do this is what switched me from using the table-based layouts I was first taught. WebJavaScript advantages Fast speed: JavaScript is executed on the client side thats why it is very fast. Advantages of Inline CSS: Inline takes precedence over all other styles. I use it and love it. You can definitely hire someone to create a template for the site if you want. They dont need a lot of fancy features or tons of content. The border-collapse property sets whether the table borders Tables are still very useful for layout given that most sites are still essentially boxes that never move, but adjust in size as needed. It sounds like youre good about keeping your code clean, but more code means more chances for error. I do think there is an advantage for div based techniques for high traffic sites and I will continue to expand my knowledge of div based layouts for this reason. I just wrote this post a couple months before Matt Cutts mentioned how some at Google were pushing for that to be a factor. Divs cant do what tables can as simple as that. Another example of hype at its finest. For me this debate is less css vs tables as it is divs vs tables. Fixed positions make things more flexible? As far as the speed issues, Google didnt really talk about load times affecting ranking until after I wrote this post. Not all browsers (especially older versions) render tables the same. That leads to easier maintenance, more freedom in design, and quicker load times. Regarding Google using load times, does that mean that if your server is on a lower bandwidth connection, or on a slower server that Google will hold that against you, or do they have a way of disregarding those variables and just base it on how long each page would take to load if bandwidth, lag and server response were constant? Its pretty common to do when first learning css. IE gets some things wrong, but it gets a lot more things right. divs vs tables RIGHT! Let me also say that if you prefer to develop sites with a table-based layout, good for you. If there is anyone that actually codes full table-based websites by hand I would be curious to know what reasoning they have for not switching. I cant go selling a 10 MS speed advantage to anyone and expect them to take me seriously. You can probably also wrap the code in a blockquote. Theres really no reason in my opinion to use floats on a horizontal list when the goal is to have the list elements cooperate rather than be independent blocks whose widths are determined by content and padding. Oddly as grids become more and more in use theyre sometimes developed in a way that attempts to recreate a table using css. Tables can be part of your layout, but they shouldnt make up the entire layout. CSS is a standard across the board. CSS based design is unquestionably superior to table layout, but due to sheer laziness the practice of table design has held on. So, its important to ensure faster speed. Why does anyone really care how something is put together? What Im saying though is the problem isnt css itself. There are a few downsides while using CSS. Its more in how you code it where I dont think html tables are the right approach. Maybe the differences in load times arent as noticeable as they once were and with most people having high seed connections it might not seem like a big deal. Then I had to make changes to one site and thought there had to be a better way. CSS is very useful for styles regardless of how you do the layout. Thats not the case. Use table-layout: fixed to create a This process allows me to offer fixed price websites without a lot of risk that Im going to have to eat a lot of hours resolving cross browser compatibility issues. Those arguments alone should be enough to tip the scales in the argument. Justin, apparently I named this post well, since the debate never seems to die. Can you recommend several online tutorials on how to lay out a web page with divs, as well as with their accompanying css rule elements? If you ever visited a page that showed nothing for a few seconds before everything suddenly appeared, that time was likely your browser making its first pass over the table structure behind the page. If youre having to spend the vast majority of your time finding workarounds for IE then youve probably been doing something wrong. I hope this will show some good ways to the others. A 10 MS difference is meaningless. The third problem with tables is in how browsers render them. I honestly dont care what they call it.. as long as it still works like tables. The more professional sites are *usually* built using div/css scripting and now table cells as most sites require absolute positioned content which most sites are not using. Laying information out this way is simply more intuitive than floating divs, not from a web standards perspective, but from a kid puts shapes in the holes perspective. As far as it being easier for you to code it with a table now, thats probably true. I dont use DreamWeaver and you dont need to add fixed dimensions everywhere to make divs work. If I tired to reply to your comment in Spanish it would take me hours, even days, to put together a few coherent sentences. 1. I dont agree with their reasoning, but it is there. Your comment suggests your commenting on the title of this post and not the content of the post. It still ends up being less code than you would use for a similar table based design. To each their own in regards to tables. I agree that CSS is much better in theory, but as long as people use IE and Microsoft refuses to be standards compliant, I dont think CSS for structure is the greatest idea. Assuming no major errors I think the search spiders will get through your code fine whether its css or tables. We needed three sets of tags to present some content as opposed to the one set of div tags. Granted, CSS loads faster and for big websites is easier to maintain for large websites, but after trying to convert the newindex1 page from tables to CSS, Im having a very hard time understanding why CSS is better for small websites. Most of the sites I create are for small businesses averaging around 10 60 pages. You say that people apparently think tables are easier than css because they already know tables, but I think youre wrong there. 1)Flexible?No.Tables are much more flexible due to fixed positions.Yes,fixed positions.You just have to set the positions and hey presto!Your site as you want it! Odds are pretty good that none of the people who wrote these posts are or were on the development teams that wrote the browser code. This site uses css and works in IE for example as do many, many others. The example below specifies a solid border for