# Tables in pure Markdown

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/tables-in-pure-markdown/81>\
**Category:** Extensions\
**Created:** [September 3, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/tables-in-pure-markdown/81 "2014-09-03T20:48:29Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 188

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![vas](https://talk.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/vas/32/1267_2.png) [@vas](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/vas)\
**Post date:** [July 26, 2022, 6:35pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/tables-in-pure-markdown/81/188 "2022-07-26T18:35:44Z")

</div>

> [@numerodos](#):
>
> Here’s an idea I had over the weekend.
> 
> ```auto
> ,,,
> header1 , header2 , header3
> item1 , item2 , item3
> item4 , item5 , item6
> ,,,
> 
> ```

What would your idea’s advantages be over the following?

````markdown
``` csv
header1 , header2 , header3
item1 , item2 , item3
item4 , item5 , item6
```

````

By sticking with existing fenced code syntax, it degrades gracefully under generic Markdown processing.

(There’s a [related discussion](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/mermaid-generation-of-diagrams-and-flowcharts-from-text-in-a-similar-manner-as-markdown/1882/39) about whether fenced code blocks can be interpreted, processed or executed.)

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/tables-in-pure-markdown/81)._