[iamben]

Nothing. But tables are for tabular data. Laying out a page using a table to divide it up and make it look pretty (or in lots of cases, lay it out so it performs some kind of sales based task) doesn't make much sense. Hence the preferred CSS route, even if the markup is just as verbose (as mentioned in this thread).

Web apps aside [sigh], if one was to disable CSS (and thus all the blocks making it look pretty), the page should still make sense. An H1 as the main header, copy in paragraphs, headers dividing up the content, blockquotes, navigation in lists - and tabular data in tables (etc, etc).

It doesn't always work like that in practice, but that's the aim.

[forgottenpass]

Nothing. But tables are for tabular data.

And webpages are a document presentation format. If jamming applications into documents made the web an application platform, than jamming grid layouts into tables made them a grid widget.

Calling a SPA a "page" is a larger and more ridiculous lie than calling the table tag a grid layout widget. Anyone still committed to the table tag lie should move all their apps out of the browser today.

Web developers can work around the table tag, but not the fact they're jamming apps into documents. So one of these lies is taken more seriously than the other.

[umanwizard]

But why is that beneficial?

[andreareina]

I'm on a crap connection, and it's not unusual for the styling content to not make it (whether it's CSS or javascript). The ones that follow these principles remain usable, the ones that don't, don't.

[iamben]

Along with what the others have mentioned (connection, screen readers), it's good for your SEO as well.

[shakna]

Bad connections, slow connections and naive screen readers are all common.