It is important to note that the Syntax Rules state (in part):
Markdown is not a replacement for HTML, or even close to it. Its syntax is very small, corresponding only to a very small subset of HTML tags. The idea is not to create a syntax that makes it easier to insert HTML tags. In my opinion, HTML tags are already easy to insert. The idea for Markdown is to make it easy to read, write, and edit prose. HTML is a publishing format; Markdown is a writing format. Thus, Markdown’s formatting syntax only addresses issues that can be conveyed in plain text.
For any markup that is not covered by Markdown’s syntax, you simply use HTML itself. There’s no need to preface it or delimit it to indicate that you’re switching from Markdown to HTML; you just use the tags.
So, yes, inserting a <br />
is the proper way to do it.
In fact, as tables are not "prose," some have argued that Markdown should not support any kind of table syntax -- that tables should only be created using raw HTML. While many disagree on that point (I'm not making either argument here, simply stating that the disagreement exists), it is hard to miss that the original implementation (often referred to as the "reference implementation") offers no support for tables outside of raw HTML. In fact, the first example of raw HTML in the rules is of an HTML table.
The point is that you should never need to question whether inserting raw HTML is the proper way to accomplish something in Markdown. Markdown was designed specifically with that intention in mind.
`,see http://stackoverflow.com/a/12119310/1548376 – David Jacquel Oct 11 '15 at 20:40