I remember Christian emphasizing that a note was only the holder of a Zettel. Thinking about that has led me to start using Zettel IDs within notes as well. For example, I may identify a thought I wish to come back to, or feel like I could reference from somewhere else—but which is not yet ready to become its own note.
One place I've started using this is in reference URLs. Often, I read articles and write thoughts about the content. So I'll create a note for that article, with the URL and my comments included. But sometimes I capture additional URLs as I'm reading, that may contain significant additional insight into the main topic. And then I capture relevant thoughts about those secondary URLs, grouping them together, within the larger body of the note. This presents a quandary: Will that secondary URL eventually become its own note?
One way to preemptively address this is to use reference-style Markdown links, and give each URL a Zettel ID. This has the advantage of improving readability of the main body of the note, since URLs tend to be unpredictably long, and we have no current way to theme them into being less obtrusive.
So, for example, I might have a section like this:
Here is an additional reference that may be relevant to this topic: [^]
While it seems unrelated, it's actually quite connected thematically...
This means that if I want to reference this URL multiple times in the note, it's simple and readable to do so, and if I want to reference it from another note, it's simple to do so.
It also means it's simple for me to break this URL into its own note in the future. I don't need to update a footnote numbering scheme, or worry I'm re-using an ID that's already been used. And even if I didn't update the original pointer to a wiki-style link
[], it would still be discoverable.
Thoughts on this? My main concern is that it's a case of premature optimization.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!