Expanding the optional syntax to sections and steps

[philocalyst]

Similarly to how the '>' indicates that the following line should be treated as a note rather than a recipe step, I think that the '?' (used for declaring ingredients and cookware as optional in one of the extensions) could be used in a similar manner.

In the manifesto, goal number five:

Structured Data Unlocks Smarter Cooking
With the right format, recipes can be dynamically adjusted for servings, dietary needs, or ingredient availability—automatically.

I don't know exactly how yet, but if this syntax could be combined with some optional way of signifying the condition behind its optionality, like "vegetarian", it could allow for a huge amount of composability when devising a recipe for a large audience. Because right now, I'm leaning towards storing these edits as diffs, which is just much less maintainable.

Heat a #skillet{} over medium heat and add @olive oil{2%Tbs}. Season @Chicken breasts{2} with @salt{to taste} and @black pepper{to taste}. Sear the @Chicken breasts{} for ~{5%minutes} per side, until cooked through.

?(vegetarian)Substitute the @&chicken breasts{} with pressed @tofu(cubed){200%g}, season with @salt{} and @black pepper{}(to taste), and sear in the same #skillet{} for ~{4-5%minutes} per side until golden.

For sections, maybe this syntax is too ugly and could be up to the implementer to differentiate between a section with steps and one with only optional steps?

Of course, any optional steps ingredients and cookware would automatically be marked as optional, taking some inspiration from the modes functionality.