|
Tables introduce far more compatibility issues. That's why it's bad to use tables for things tables are not supposed to be used for. PDAs and small screens are being used more and more. The number of people using the web on these devices is only going to increase. Browser-makers do not all treat tables the same way, and never have. Screen readers can have problems when a site is layed out using tables.
Divs are understood by almost all browsers. They were introduced at the same time as tables, in HTML 3.2.
What you are talking about, by the sounds of it, is creating a site that looks the same on IE and Netscape. You achieve this using tables, because you know how different browsers treat them, and the pitfalls involved with using them for design. What you might not be aware of is how the massive number of other programs and devices treat your site. Using proper markup means that if your CSS fails, your site should still be usable. That's the point in semantic markup - a user agent (like a browser) can use that markup to work out the meaning of a section of a page.
You say use HTML because of compatibility issues. I say using HTML for compatibility is pointless. You might be able to say a site looks the same on two or three current or older browsers, but you can't say that your site is usable for anyone and everyone who visits, irrespective of browser or platform, screen size, or even whether they're reading the page or it's being read to them. Which technique achieves wider compatibility? The one that means a site can be used by anyone using any program on any internet-capable device or the one that means a site can only be used by those with one of a small selection of visual browsers?
You're right, of course, this is a topic in itself.
|