<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="geneva, verdana, arial" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm sure that some of the coolest things you developed with combined technologies as they were not meant to be used, did not comply in some way or another.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
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.