# Editing: An insert table option

**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/editing-an-insert-table-option/19719
**Category:** Feature
**Created:** [September 6, 2014, 11:45am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/editing-an-insert-table-option/19719 "2014-09-06T11:45:48Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 10

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![elijah](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/elijah/32/104055_2.png) [@elijah](https://meta.discourse.org/u/elijah)
#### Post date: [March 16, 2017, 10:19pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/editing-an-insert-table-option/19719/10 "2017-03-16T22:19:02Z")

</div>

I believe table support was considered too difficult under the current Markdown implementation. There is planned work to replace the Markdown engine and then possibly support Markdown tables.

[https://meta.discourse.org/t/markdown-table-support-in-a-discourse-topic/13546/99?u=elijah](https://meta.discourse.org/t/markdown-table-support-in-a-discourse-topic/13546/99)

> [@Discourse and CommonMark](https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-and-commonmark/25410/16):
>
> Curious if there is any notion of when this might happen at this point… I see that this is not on the [1.8 Release](https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-version-1-8/49801) plan. And that the the to-do list for [CommonMark v1.0](https://talk.commonmark.org/t/issues-we-must-resolve-before-1-0-release-8-remaining/1287) is not draining too quickly. Is CommonMark 1.0 considered a prerequisite for the transition? Or is it more about the stability of [markdown-it](https://github.com/markdown-it/markdown-it) API? This is not a “where the !&\*# is my CommonMark?” question. I’m just curious to understand what the current thinking is…

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/editing-an-insert-table-option/19719)._