Hi Devs,

When writing Notes, I find myself using markdown-inspired or haddock-inspired features. The reason is that I keep telling myself 

> In 5 years time, we'll surely have an automated tool that renders Notes referenced under the cursor in a popup in our IDE

And I might not be completely wrong about that, after all the strong conventions about Note declaration syntax allow me to do jump-to-definition on Note links in my IDE already (thanks to a shell script written by Zubin!).
Still, over the years I kept drifting between markdown and haddock syntax, sometimes used `backticked inline code` or haddock 'ticks' to refer to functions in the compiler (sometimes even 'GHC.Fully.Qualified.ticks') and for code blocks I used all of the following forms:

Haddock "code quote"

> id :: a -> a
> id x = x

Markdown triple backticks

```hs
id :: a -> a
id x = x
```

Indentation by spaces

  id :: a -> a
  id x = x

And so on.

I know that at least Simon was thrown off in the past about my use of "tool-aware markup", perhaps also because I kept switching the targetted tool. I don't like that either. So I wonder
  1. Do you think it is worth optimising Notes for post-processing by an external tool?
  2. I think it's only reasonable if we decide for a target syntax. Which syntax should it be?
Cheers,
Sebastian