After reading this topic for the last hour, I've seen many, many different arguments, so i would like to put in my input. But firstly, I would like to say this: regardless of what's "best" according to standards, web developers are challenged to do what's "best" for users. I saw this very point made several times. The W3C has made great advancements to what CSS can do. I don't think the problem of support lies with them as much as it lies with browsers. In the end, browsers call the shots, which sparked this whole controversy in the first place. So, I'll begin with that topic.IE6 is old. It's not Microsoft's fault is doesn't support CSS2. It was great back in it's day. However, Microsoft did make the mistake of waiting too long, and IE7 is the result. I'm not a fan of IE7 anymore. It used to be my favorite browser before I started developing, but now I see the benefits of Firefox, more support. In fact, I heard there's a CSS property for rounded corners that is supported by Firefox. Everyone loves rounded edges, but no one loves the work put into making them cross browser. It's known fact that tables work better cross browser that pure CSS layouts, but you also lose a little bit that each browser can deliver. If every browser used the same standard, the standards of the W3C, I can guarantee table layouts would dwindle and die, as pure CSS layouts offer cleaner XHTML. But of course, the W3C and browser vendors won't work together like that. It'd make too much sense.It is true tables aren't meant for layouts. Everyone understands this. But why do developers need to spend hours hacking and hacking to make a layout that works with the old browsers? Even some current browsers don't support everything the W3C suggests to use. As I said before, as developers, we are challenged to what's "best" for the users, and that means giving a layout all users can enjoy. Face it, table layouts are less of a hassle to do this with.I'm not saying table layouts are the greatest thing ever. In fact, I stopped using them two years ago. Instead I've written pure CSS layouts for the websites I've developed lately and everything looks fine in IE7 and Firefox 2 & 3. I'm pretty sure they look fine in Opera as well, although I haven't tried. Truth be told, I didn't even pour that much time into getting it to look fine cross browser. Everything ended up looking fine from the beginning. So table layouts aren't required for consistent cross browser layouts. But on the other hand, my layouts are simple. I don't spend a lot of time saying "this element MUST be RIGHT here on the screen NO MATTER WHAT". I honestly don't care that much. I make it look organized, then pour my hours into PHP programming. I mean, people come for the content, not the little box that stays 10 px from the left all the time. Make the content readable, give the site a little color, and users tend to be happy with that.Now for the developers that do care about every little placement, table layouts are close to the only cross browser solution. Of course you could use CSS, but honestly, is written different CSS for different browsers any better than tables? In my eyes, no.Overall, I stray from tables because that is not there intended purpose. But I also stray from layouts that need CSS hacks to make things look good no matter what as well. In the end, I think developers spend too much time making the placement perfect, when the only people who appreciate those hours ARE developers. Most users just want to read and use the site easily, which can be obtained without over complex layouts, as my projects have proven.And to the original poster: I think you started a "religious" war.