# Use escaped space as  

**URL:** <https://talk.commonmark.org/t/use-escaped-space-as-nbsp/1907>\
**Category:** Spec\
**Created:** [November 2, 2015, 4:08pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/use-escaped-space-as-nbsp/1907 "2015-11-02T16:08:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 19

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tin-pot](https://cdn.commonmark.org/user_avatar/talk.commonmark.org/tin-pot/32/810_2.png) [@tin-pot](https://talk.commonmark.org/u/tin-pot)\
**Post date:** [November 7, 2015, 11:52pm UTC](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/use-escaped-space-as-nbsp/1907/19 "2015-11-07T23:52:04Z")

</div>

I like this idea of seeing a table in both uses: it is always good to eliminate special syntax for special cases.

I have written a proposal to extend the _CommonMark_ specification to include tables which would render both your examples in the way as intended (well, I hope the rules _do_ have this effect, and that the following _is_ the intended table structure in each example):

1. The first one as a single-row, two-column table without a table header, as shown;

2. the second one as a single-row, single-column table with an ordered list in it’s (sole) table data cell; and this list contains one item with a `<br>` after `this is`.

So the second example should produce “what it says in the content” 😉 :

```
<table><tbody>
  <tr><td><ol><li>This is a<br>list with a line break</li><ol></td></tr>
</tbody></table>

```

* * *

You’re welcome to take a look, and feel free to comment or suggest improvements:

[http://talk.commonmark.org/t/rfc-spec-extension-for-tables-syntax-and-transformation-rules/1910/1](http://talk.commonmark.org/t/rfc-spec-extension-for-tables-syntax-and-transformation-rules/1910/1)

---

_[View the full topic](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/use-escaped-space-as-nbsp/1907)._