Finally, the [[wiki-link]] has reached the tipping point towards much wider adoption! This is a cause for celebration. Wider adoption = higher likelihood of future-proofed notes.
But what about the Piped Link?
[[longer-note-file-name | short-display-name]]
A piped link displays text that is different from the filename of the linked note. This is very handy and Wikipedia uses them.
Here’s an example: you want to link to the note: “20160519 Benefits of Quality Sleep” but that filename doesn’t flow with your current sentence. That’s where the Piped Link comes to the rescue:
So this:
“That’s an example of why [[20160519 Benefits of Quality Sleep|quality sleep]] is important.”
becomes this:
“That’s an example of why quality sleep is important.”
So, will Piped Links be a reliable, future-proofed syntax we can confidently deploy in our digital libraries?
- Yes, Piped Links are already safely widespread and using them won’t lock-in your notes.
- Piped Links are not yet a future-proofed standard, but they likely will be in a couple years.
- Don’t use Piped Links. They are not a standard and should not be considered future-proofed.