doc: use consistent typography for Note:

[Trott]

Checklist

• the commit message follows commit guidelines

Affected core subsystem(s)

doc

Description of change

Typography choices for Note: text is all over the map in stream.md.

This change introduces the following consistently for Note: text:

• Only Note: is in bold.
• Additional emphasis is done with italics, not CAPITALIZATION.
• The first word after Note: is capitalized.
• When classes are mentioned, they are enclosed in backticks.
• Only one space is used between sentences.

/cc @nodejs/documentation

[thefourtheye]

LGTM

[bengl]

Readable should be backticked, no?

[Trott]

@bengl Yup, it sure should. I'll update the PR.

[bengl]

Is there (could there be (should there be)) a tracking issue for cleaning this up in the rest of the docs?

[jasnell]

I am working on normalizing the various *Note* formats used throughout the docs as part of my "general improvements" doc PRs with the intention of making a doctool update that will provide a consistent visual treatment for those across the board. The pattern that I've been using is *Note*: Text. The doctool I have in mind will look for the *Note* pattern and will replace those in the HTML with a proper CSS-styled <aside>.

[jasnell]

oh... also, can we fold these edits up into the existing #6947?

[Trott]

@jasnell: I'm reading your first comment as indicating that I should change these to *Note*: rather than *Note:*. I'm happy to do that (and in fact, that's more correct in my mind, although some people find it visually jarring, but whatever, I just want it consistent).

As for #6947, I'm not sure what you mean by fold up. Which of these is the action you'd like to see taken? Either is fine with me. I'm just not sure which you mean.

• Close this PR. It will be handled in doc: general improvements to stream.md copy #6947.
• Issue a PR for these changes against the feature branch in doc: general improvements to stream.md copy #6947.

Or did you mean something else?

I'm also fine with just leaving this open until #6947 lands and then inspecting the results to see if this PR should be rebased and modified to deal with any stray notes that were missed.

[Trott]

Is there (could there be (should there be)) a tracking issue for cleaning this up in the rest of the docs?

Sure, feel free to open such an issue. :-P

[benjamingr]

LGTM

[jasnell]

@Trott ... several of the edits in this PR are already handled in #6947 and the ones that aren't can easily be added. If you'd like to open a PR against my branch I'll pull it in.