<DIV> vs <TABLE>

These are the key benefits. You can stuff way more content in links into your pages too.

You can still use tables for layouts and be compliant.

Having both used tables and divs, once you learn to use divs its way faster if you want to write compliant code. Trying to write complaint code using tables as the layout is a mission and a half.

Compliant XHTML is important if you want to use XSLT and XML.

 

And better accessability to screen reader users.
Lower File Sizes - this has saved me over $500 a year on bandwidth on one site alone

 

Creating a table is faster, so it's good for small projects. CSS makes managing layouts much easier for websites with hugh amounts of pages, so it's good for large projects.

 

I disagree. Once you get good with CSS and you know how a page should be laid out Div's are way faster.

 

I always lay a site out in a table then convert it to Div's.

Even easier if you export slices from MM Fireworks etc...

 

Mee too!!!!

 

We can't toss the TABLE yet. Many email clients (eg Lotus Notes) still don't render properly, and email marketing is one of the largest online revenue sources

 

Yep, same here.

The most important reason for me however is semantics. The benifits of using HTML or XHTML correctly is also code portability, readability and especially that it's more modular. Adding elements to your HTML a few months after you wrote it is much easier with a document that is semantically correct than for example a table based layout. Understanding a table layout when reading code can take a really long time while you don't have that when presentation and markup is separated AND the markup is applied correctly.

Another essential reason why people should apply semantics is SEO. Your website will be a lot more "searchable" and understandable to spiders.

 

Does noone ever find that when you use divs, it looks fine in firefox and as soon as you check your site in IE its all a mess...
Ive never had this problem with tables...

(I still use divs most of the time though)

 

Yep, that's because Internet Explorer doesn't support CSS very well. Problems with the box model, floats, overflow, etc. are rampant in IE.
It's indeed annoying but with some experience and Google you'll soon learn how to overcome those problems easily.
Of course tables have less problems in that area but I believe the disadvantages of tables are much more significant than bad CSS support.

If you want to know more about IE and CSS do a google search on "CSS hacks" and go to this website
positioniseverything dot com (can't post URLs yet).

 

I knew it was just a matter of time before we got this again: It's all Microsoft's fault that our code doesn't work. It works perfectly on the browser we develop for which has zoomed all the way to a 10% market share...

Similar arguments are proposed to justify designing for large display resolutions - apparently because the proponents believe that this will "force" people to update their computers, or OSs, or whatever.

Hello? Earth to vague dreamers residing in a fantasy world? What about the concept of designing and coding for things the majority of people actually use?

 

Firefox doesn't get it right all the time either, but in comparison to ie, it's perfect

Edit --> Minstrel got there first... And ranted a little more

 

It is not that one is correct and one is incorrect, divs are meant to be used in your layout and tables for displaying tabular data.

 

Spare me.

Divs and tables are "meant" to be used for making web pages -- anyway you choose to use them.

 

Sorry, minstrel, but that is simply false. What any technology was designed to do is a matter of fact, not opinion: the fact is that tables were never meant for layout. You need to get your facts straight before your arguments can carry any weight.

Of course, it is always possible for any technology to do more than it was originally designed for, and, for the most part, using tables for layout was accepted back when it was the only choice. Now, however, we have another choice that was designed specifically for describing presentation: CSS. In comparison, tables for layout has several disadvantages: bloated code, less flexible/maintainable, and less portable. CSS is supported well enough in modern browsers and there is no longer any good reason for continuing to use tables for layout.

 

Yeah, yeah... believe me I've heard it all before, including from you. It's still all blather and elitist bafflegab, no matter how many times it's delivered from the pulpit.

 

Of course you've heard it all before: facts don't change, even if you try to ignore them. Perhaps if your posts had some truth to them we wouldn't need to correct you nearly as often.

 

FLAN, you may feel like a nut but you're really just a common fool and not even an original one.

Use whatever you like. If it makes you happy, I'm happy for you. Just stop preaching this crap and trying to convert everyone else to the propaganda. You sound like a Jehova's Witness or a Scientologist and you're no closer to The Truth than any of those people.

 

It's no more propaganda than telling someone they should use a car instead of a riding lawnmower for transportation (a riding lawnmower works, sorta, but a car is better—you, minstrel, are like the person telling others the riding lawnmower will get better gas mileage), and my preaching is no different than that of a teacher trying to increase people's knowledge.

If there was anything incorrect or misleading in my post before then say so, if not then you can continue to rant about it, or simply accept it.

 

I don't know who you're referring to, but if it's me you comment on things I never said.

As a matter of fact I don't code for any browser. I always start out coding as it should be done, as proposed by the W3C. Then I test, and indeed first in Firefox or if possible in Safari because these browsers get most of the standards right.
But, for me it doesn't stop with these browsers as you accuse people of. I also test in IE5+ and I'll never deliver a site to a client that doesn't display correctly in these browsers, because as you said they are the mainstream application used to view websites.
I'll never force people to use this or that browser because that's not the point of accessibility. But I will promote Firefox, Safari or Opera because these browsers make a web designer's life more easily and are important to establish a semantic web.
Standards are important, not because it makes the devs using standards look cool or because we can bash table users, but because standards define a common way to code a website, because they make webdesign easier and more uniform.
I agree that many snobbish webdesigners act as if using standards is reason to act arrogant, but that doesn't mean that there are other webdesigners who are serious about it and understand the benifits.