[elpa] externals/denote 4f85d0ece8 355/355: Rephrase description about zk.el alternative

[ELPA Syncer]

branch: externals/denote
commit 4f85d0ece82e10fcc3f7a93cae54d337effa9f26
Author: Protesilaos Stavrou <info@protesilaos.com>
Commit: Protesilaos Stavrou <info@protesilaos.com>

    Rephrase description about zk.el alternative
---
 README.org | 16 +++++++---------
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/README.org b/README.org
index 30d4e4c142..ac9174d774 100644
--- a/README.org
+++ b/README.org
@@ -1660,16 +1660,14 @@ their documentation.
   is beside the point).
 
 + [[https://github.com/localauthor/zk][zk (or zk.el)]] :: Reading its 
documentation makes me think that this is
-  Denote's sibling or cousin---they have a lot of things in common,
+  Denote's sibling---the two projects have a lot of things in common,
   including the preference to rely on plain files and standard tools.
-  One general difference is that Denote is trying to not replicate
-  existing functionality, such as by not offering its own file index as
-  a substitute for Dired or the minibuffer.  Another potential
-  difference is that Denote is not a zettelkasten implementation per se,
-  though I am not sure how ZK interprets or enforces that methodology.
-  In our case, Denote does not do zettelkasten (the user does it, if
-  they want to); Denote primarily creates files with a unique
-  identifier.
+  The core difference is that Denote has a strict file-naming scheme.
+  Other differences in available features are, in principle, matters of
+  style or circumstance: both packages can have them.  As its initials
+  imply, ZK enables a zettelkasten-like workflow.  It does not enforce
+  it though, letting the user adapt the method to their needs and
+  requirements.
 
 + [[https://github.com/ymherklotz/emacs-zettelkasten][zettelkasten]] :: This 
is another one of Denote's relatives, at least
   insofar as the goal of simplicity is concerned.  The major difference