First paragraph. It does not have anything weird.
Second paragraph. It doesn't have anything weird, either. There's
just a line that begins with something that looks quite a lot like a
[1] block. Do we manage it?
[1] linkdata
Okay, now for the real thing. There should be all kinds of
links here. See Testing link abbreviations
to get a hold of what
they all mean. [2].
[2] This is a longer footnote,
possibly spanning multiple lines.
There are longer links: ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1355.txt and friends. The problem with
URIs is that you[3] have hard time knowing where they stop.
Take for example http://www.plt-scheme.org/: why is the slash included but
the colon not[4]? (Another example is
http://c2.com/cgi/quickChanges, or http://sange.fi/~atehwa/index.html…)
[3] the reader
[4] Don't tell me that properly quoted URI's won't have colons in
such positions. People never properly quote URI's, as required by
RFC2396.
Here is also an . Please jump back.
I want you to consider an unadored relative link and
another.
Does the old-style footnote[5] work anymore in
the presence of link abbreviations[6]?[7]
[5] such as this one here
[6] as tested by this file
[7] And
does it work if broken into
multiple lines?
How do multiple labels in the same line work? What about Second-label conflicts?
This is an interesting way to produce a bibliography:
RFC2396: Uniform Resource Identifies (URI): Generic Syntax (ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc2396.txt)