DIVs vs. TABLEs a rebuttal please

Question

There are lots of people out there asking "why shouldn't we use tables for structuring our HTML" and while a lot of answers come in, I rarely see anyone being converted to the world of semantics. That said, I've yet to see any convincing rebuttals to support the rationale for why we should (or might) use tables.

Anyone care to offer a rationale for when tables are valid structural markup?

---

Nov 7, 2008

Considering that this question didn't go away like I thought it would, I suppose I'd better clarify my question and explain its existence.

Through frustration having read the "tables are easier" argument once too many times following the "DIVs vs. TABLEs" question I wanted to expose the question a little more and not let the table lovers get let off the hook so easily.

Each to their own others might say, but I'm forever being given some application to put on our sites that's been created by some 'tables are easier' developer that dumps a chunk of crappy HTML into my pages, and to be honest, I'm just not seeing enough of the table lovers listening to the arguments.

Anyone use Mambo back in the day? Anyone had to take a bash at putting a design on the top of Microsoft's Sharepoint? Having to fight your way through all that nested table crap was hell, and considering that it was written by some bloody good coders annoys the heck out of me. Reasonable semantic markup has been around for long enough that there should be no reason for developers to still be championing "tables are easier". Tables are not easier - they are lazy!

My question deserved the negative rep for the negative manner in which it was presented, but I'm still waiting for people to accept that the only reason they use tables is because THEY DON'T KNOW HTML. Because if they did, then they'd understand, as jjrv says, that tables are for tabular data.

Answer 1

Tables are valid when you have a table of data. I've seen interactive grid widgets where they go out of their way to use a bunch of divs to avoid the dreaded table tag. When it's tabular data, make it a table.

A more controversial view of mine is that when you have problems dealing with vertical layout issues in CSS, you can just use a table and often resolve it immediately. Not as pretty as it ought to be perhaps, mixing content with presentation, but it gets the job done and avoids CSS hacks to get around IE.

Answer 2

Tables are supported even in crusty old HTML v1.0 browsers. If your target market includes people using embedded browsers in mobile phones from the 1990s, that might be a good reason to go with tables.

Lots of existing auto-generated HTML uses tables. If your code needs to interact with or include those tables, it'd be better to go for consistency.

Answer 3

How about the post you already answered in

Answer 4

Using modern semantic markup is much easier when you're adding features or fixing bugs or changing the look of a data-driven web site. Adding AJAX features or any kind of interactive scripting will work much better with DIVs and CSS than with TABLEs.

Moving to a content manager like Drupal, Joomla, WordPress, or the like will be much easier if you're already organized with semantic markup, too.

The newer browser editions will also support modern markup more efficiently and your site will display faster. Rearranging all those tables can result in slow display times.

On the other hand, tables are here to stay. Some people will continue using them and browsers will continue displaying them. There is nothing inherently wrong with non-semantic markup if that's what you want. A completely static site that will never be changed can run as well with tables as with modern markup.

As for valid structural markup, there is this: Tables are a great way to display tabular data, like database or spreadsheet tables. They are not really valid markup for anything else.

Answer 5

i would say jjrv is right in that tables are excellent for tabular data, going out of your way to make something "work" like a table instead of just using a table is borderline retarded.

if you care about standards, and moving toward a solid implementation across all browsers then most of your markup should be in table-less liquid layouts... and your tabular data is in.. you guessed it tables!

if you need to cater to really old browsers, that is before the dreaded ie6 then you will have lots of problems in css, and given current usage statistics its pretty safe to assume that everyone will have a "modern" browser that supports css layouts.

all this said and their are times when your banging your head against the wall on a layout and you want/do say f___ it through it in a table and it works. I would hope this is a deprecated practice, but in a clinch this does give predicable results.

Answer 6

Use tables for lowest-common denominator html or for tabular data where it makes sense to span across columns or rows. Otherwise css layouts are much less verbose and much easier to maintain once you get the hang of it.

Answer 7

DIV-based layouts suffer from limitations. Without tables it is essentially impossible to implement a two column layout that grows properly based on the height of the content.

Answer 8

An interesting note is related to highly complex JavaScript applications. If you pick apart Gmail or Google Calendar with Firebug, you'll see that tables are used extensively, even for layout. Granted, these are usually dynamically generated but this goes to show that in rare cases some very visually complex interactive user interfaces are extremely difficult to build using only DIVs.

Answer 9

RE: Why tables?

Because some people are (still, after all these years) afraid of change. They've heard that using semantic HTML is a good thing (and don't usually fully grasp the concept). So they try to put together a layout using CSS having never done it before. They run into a few (well documented, and usually easy to solve) issues, throw their hands up, and go running back to tables.

They then decide that CSS is 'too time consuming' ("I'm not willing to spend the time to learn it") or 'not practical' ("I don't get it. It's too hard") and that tables are the only true way. Through stubbornness and ignorance, they believe their own bullsh!t and convince their clients and peers.

And their world remains happy and unchanged, fading further into the past and deeper into obsolescence*

And that's "why tables". The end.

(*except that they are well suited for coding HTML emails)

Answer 10

How do I vote for a moratorium on this kind of question?

We've done what people stupidly call "DIVs versus TABLEs" over and over again. It's pointless.

Is there a facility to tag a question "done to death"?