No, that was not my interpretation of this article at all. It sounds to me like you've never built a large CSS/XHTML valid website, or you'd understand why the web is driving toward standards.
I was like you ~3-4 years ago as I grew up using tables. Believe me, just move on... 99% of the job postings I see require an understanding of XHTML/CSS. And this trend will continue as standards are solidified...
The point of the article is to show how table-based layouts in some specific circumstances are more maintainable than pure-CSS layout. If you disagree with this, it would be interesting to hear your counterpoints.
It's called a table, not a grid. And as information and the internet enlarge (hence the continuous drive for better search), semantics are a very important aspect of the equation. As such, so is using proper markup to define the content of the page.
Your post does not constitute more "maintainable" code at all, and contradicts the years of community contributions to CSSZenGarden. I'd recommend you establish a personal CSS "framework" for tackling common layouts/frustrations.
I've been in the business since the late 90's my friend, and for a significant portion of that time on the side of front-end design and production. I didn't mean anything negative by calling out his inexperience with XHTML/CSS, but after reading through his rebuttal it was the only logical conclusion.
Unlike you, I clicked on your profile and read a vast majority of your comments. You should go back to lurking, and spew your negativity and snide remarks elsewhere...
I was like you ~3-4 years ago as I grew up using tables. Believe me, just move on... 99% of the job postings I see require an understanding of XHTML/CSS. And this trend will continue as standards are solidified...
Catch up or be left behind.