- To create a colspan or rowspan effect requires nesting one table inside another.
This one right here had me convinced for a moment that the subject was "tables for layout" instead of "display: table for layout".
Could add to the Pros: vertical-alignment.
Setting display: table on everything-- who the heck does that? It makes things display like tables which, other than the height and vertical-align things, suck!
They act differently with widths.
They set off two nasty Firefox bugs.
In a very long page with a long column with a lot of display: table elements (with no further styling and no table-row or table-column stuff) Opera finally loses it and stops rendering (the page has to be kinda long for this and as it and FF are the only ones who have issues with this I expect them to be fixed... eventually).
99% of the time display: table does exactly what I DON'T want it to do-- makes the page elements act like tables. Floats and positioning and margins all do a much better job at making the page the way I want it-- with full Nazi-like control over any strange thing some user might throw at it.
Agreed with Paul re the sole equal-height advantage (but also adding vert-align), though I haven't used display: table for this yet (in page columns). But using an image to fake it is, actually, a nasty, often inflexible hack that also requires another GET request-- an unneeded one if CSS had let us do things like vertical-align with auto vertical margins (with rendered heights not stated heights) or % heights based on rendered (not stated) parent heights.
I also want a parent selector and a pony for Christmas.