> Standards? Did you even read them?

Please refer to: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/appendix/notes.html#notes-tables

Quoting:

The HTML table model has evolved from studies of existing SGML tables models, ... , and a wide range of tabular layout techniques in magazines, books and other paper-based documents.

Note that W3C (which IS the closest to standards defining authority) uses the words tabular layout (LAYOUT!) referring to rows and columns used in HTML table model.

If you visit any CSS site, they tell you how to do ROWS and COLUMNS using CSS only (DIV's), but ROWS and COLUMNS are TABULAR!

Why do you insist of re-creating TABULAR LAYOUT with DIV'S (NON-TABULAR tags)?

The Semantic HTML bull***t

Many of people participating in "CSS vs TABLES" argument are calling to write HTML that is "SEMANTIC HTML".

"SEMANTIC" means "having MEANING". Actually ANY HTML is SEMANTIC, since it has MEANING to the medium it is addressing - web browsers and robots.

Re-creating TABULAR LAYOUT (which is ROWS and COLUMNS) with DIV'S (which are NON-TABULAR tags) is what "css crowd" should've called NON-SEMANTIC HTML (in their meaning of "semantic").

There is NOTHING called SEMANTIC HTML, no mainstream robot or browser makes ANY use of you semantics DIVs, it's the same to EVERY BROWSER AND ROBOT.

There are some experiments done by university researchers, but that's it.

Why are you, "css people", are so insitant on doing CSS-only layout? Can't you use table for making ROWS and COLUMNS and STYLE the TABLE's rows and columns using CSS? You can, but you don't. Want to know WHY?

Who are those who insist on doing CSS ONLY site?

They are guys who do HTML 8 hours a day.

CSS-only is COMPLICATED endeavor. The main reason people do CSS-ONLY design is TO HAVE A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT, not because standards tell you not to use tables (they don't, as shown above).

It's just that guys who are HTML PROFESSIONALS (8hr a day of HTML) -- they don't have much to accomplish. Pretty much the summit of their experience is being able to do CSS-ONLY SITE.

That's it, no OSCARS for Best Written HTML.

For the rest of us, who aren't HTML PROFESSIONALS, it's important that site ACCOMPLISHES it's GOAL, whether it's a sale or something else. Whatever there's inside - nobody cares. And since it's SIMPLER to use TABLES + CSS - that's why there are so many sites using TABLES+CSS for layout.

Yes, there are reasons W3C frowns upon tables, and those are:

1) "non-streamed display", which is pretty much fixed in modern browsers;

2) non-visual readers (this is a good reason, almost always skipped by "CSS vs TABLES" crowd)

What are the arguments presented instead?

1) TABLES are hell, because you need to write CELLPADDING="3"...

Did they just defrost you??? Nobody writes that. People using TABLES for layout are using same CLASS=HEADING and style that in external css. The amount of code is pretty much the same, the number of hacks and debug time for all browsers are considerably less!

<div class="heading">My site is awesome</div>
<div class="content">content</div>

vs

<table><tr><td class=heading>My site is awesome
<tr><td class=content>content</table>

* usage of unnecessary </td> and </tr> tags should be considered non-semantic (since, no standard, browser or robot require it (once again W3C agrees with me: TR end tag: optional, td also) - it's meaningless to have it there, unless you are writing XHTML, which is even more meaningless, but that's another topic) Usage of quotes aroung non-spaced attribute is algo meaningless.

2) SEMANTIC HTML

Debunked above, W3C has pro and con arguments, but isn't 100% inclined to one side.

3) SEPARATION OF PRESENTATION FROM CONTENT

This is argument that is the problem of programming (HTML isn't a programming language!), why are so many of you insist of dragging it here? It's non applicable to "CSS vs tables" argument, since HTML IS A PRESENTATION ( MARKUP! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markup_(computer_programming) ) LANGUAGE.

CSS vs TABLES argument is like a religion argument. The guys who do CSS full time are inclined to feel accomplished by the fact they can do "DIV-based design" and won't be willing to convert to "TABLES ARE SIMPLER".

Vice versa, the TABLES are simpler crowd will never convert to "DIV-ONLY LAYOUT" unless they start working with HTML full-time, i.e. become THE HTML GUY, because it's simpler to learn and implement.

So, just STOP TRYING TO CONVERT US! Everybody has his own belief. We don't publish articles trying to PROACTIVELY explain why tables are simple, we publish it as a RESPONSE to your PROVOCATIONS. 

If the job you need to do can be accomplished with a AXE and you like AXES - do use it. If you FEEL more comfortable using SAW - use SAW. There's no reason to tell one instrument is inferior. They both accomplish the same task.

So, once again - stop converting us, this "CSS-only design" sound more and more like "We're here to tell you Good News, Brother! You can now be free from TABLES and join the loving bosom of DIVs!" I get it - you feel great about being able to do CSS-only site (even if it takes you longer, but the sense of being in some% of ELITE who CAN do this - gives your brain more endorphines, but it doesn't do anything to my brain!)