Unfair. Look at the way the I used the XML parsing COM component to allow a site to save images off another site in the ASP forum, nothing non-compliant about that and I know that's not what the XML component's purpose it.

Hmm, to be honest the search engine indexing is the only <u>practical</u> advantage you mentioned, and that has nothing to do with page layout. The rest are about symantics and definitions. I can and do use a hidden CSS layer for search engines and then put my table code under it.

I also use server side includes on all my sites and generally only have to build a single table layout that way, more code reuse in fact than even CSS so there's no big advantage there.

Are you talking about rendering speed or coding speed when you say tables are slower?

Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear some more real-world practical reasons to use CSS over tables (like being able to deliver different layouts of a page for printing or based on screen rez).

At first I was just interested in who's using CSS instead of tables, but now I'm more curious about the thinking behind it and 'purpose' isn't a convincing argument to me personally.


[/quote]

Hmm.. I thought you were talking about HTML and CSS being combined.

I use a database driven site, so if I built a site with tables, it would be the same thing as includes. But that isn't my point. In your case, and mine, CSS would not take an advantage in that particular area.

I was talking about rendering speeds.

And yes, that is another good argument... Delivering different layouts. .

I guess it really depends on whether you want to follow standards or not. Personally, when I look at a site that is designed with tables, I think that they have not taken advantage of the true power of CSS, and are neglegent towards it. It's like forming an opinion when someone uses improper english.

If you want to follow the standards, and do it correctly, then use CSS. If you want to break the standards, and like I said in my last post, disregard reccomendations of W3C, then use tables.

The reason why I am so strongly against using HTML for presentation purposes is because I want to follow standards, and become a better web developer.

When I used to use tables for my layouts, I found them to get very complex, very fast. With multiple nested tables, it was hard to edit. With CSS I have much less HTML, and it's easy edited.

As XHTML popularity increases, and regular HTML is outdated, people will be forced to use CSS instead of tables for layout.

CSS gives you so much more flexibility than tables. Tables are strict, and are hard to format. Whereas CSS is much more flexible. You may think I am contradicting what I said earlier, about how it is much easier to design a site in tables. That is still true. But the more complex you get, the harder it will become. I might not be making sense here...

It took me a while myself to realize that it was time to abandon tables, but now that I have, I will never go back. I feel so much more free with CSS.

I also have not seen one message board designed in CSS, but instead with tables. I am designing my own message board, and I hope to break this viscious pattern and make the first message board designed in CSS, to my knowledge, like it should be.

In the end, it comes down to really whether or not you want to follow standards. There are pretty good arguments for both sides, but standards tell the web developer to use CSS. That's my best argument.