Do we really want this kind of bickering around here? There's a time and a place for every technology. Everything has pros and cons. There's no perfect soluti

Do we really want this kind of bickering around here? There's a time and a place for every technology. Everything has pros and cons. There's no perfect solution. There are lots of good solutions. Sometimes CSS is one and sometimes Tables are one. Usually tables are used for tabular data. It is helpful for understanding what is on the page. It helps the robots. CSS knows nothing about the data. It doesn't care what's in whatever it is making pretty and the robots are fine with that. There's so much work to do. Why do we argue over these silly things. If you can do it with tables, do it with tables. If you can do it with CSS, I'll pay you 5 or maybe 10 dollars more per hour. Look, for every weakness you can find in the CSS route, I can find a weakness in the tables route. Try doing a fluid design with tables. Show me a search results page that will automatically fill in tiles to fit the users' resolutions. That's hard to do with tables, you have to use JavaScript and it's nuts. With CSS, just make them float left. That's why CSS is cool, little things like that. Yes, Tables are easier, they are. No one denies it. Easier does not make it better. Just because CSS has some flaws doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. CSS is good, it's separation of data and presentation. It's division of labor. It's not bad. It's good. If you have an application for example and you want to let your users put information anywhere using only one text file and without programming, let them do it with CSS. That makes sense. Tables are hard to make dynamic... Maybe that's the divide: static vs. dynamic Static layout with tables, fine. Dynamic layout with tables, not fine. Look, anyway, why all the animosity toward the CSS'ers? CSS is totally fine. No need to be hatin. It's not a popularity contest, it's a technology that can be used to do things.