Suggested change to link presentation
I am having trouble understanding why Zettlr allows its unique identifiers (the time and date stamp) to be so visually prominent in links. I understand that every note must have unique identifier, and the date and time stamp is as good as any. One advantage of Zettlr over other implementations of markdown editing is that it can automatically generate a date and time stamp with a keyboard shortcut and can identify this ID within the content of the note, while other programs require that the ID be in the filename of the note. So it can link to a specific type of internal note content rather than linking to unique filenames.
Let's assume that users do not know the ID of any particular note from memory. This means that visually displaying the ID of a particular note is very low priority, because seeing that number will almost never be useful when I user wants to locate a note based on memory or association with its content. Some users might think that it is important to have the ID in the file name because they sometimes search for notes based on their creation or modification date. However, Zettlr can easily display this information below the filename (there's a setting for it) as well as sorting notes by such dates.
The ID is very prominent because it is the visual marker of direct links to other notes, whether or not the ID is part of the filename. I think there is a better alternative. If I link to a note with filename "web resources", the link looks like this:
[] web resources
But why not instead have it not display the note ID and look like this:
It's the equivalent of this Markdown:
...where "zettlr://" stands in for whatever link scheme you actually use.
It might not matter as much when linking within structured notes to other notes, but it would make it tremendously easier to read text within a sentence that links to other notes, and thus the change would encourage users to link more as they type. It is the difference between the unreadable:
Discussions of [] Markdown standards rely heavily on [] web resources but ignore the [] challenges of groupthink.
and the readable:
Discussions of [[Markdown standards]] rely heavily on [[web resources]] but ignore the [[challenges of groupthink]].
It also would help clarify what the link links to. In the above example, it's ambiguous whether that note links to "challenges" or "challenges of groupthink". In the latter, it's clear. Do others agree or not?