()

Testing link abbreviations

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 [2] thing. There should be all kinds of [3] links here. See “Testing link abbreviations” to get a hold of what they all mean [4] . [5] .
[2] mailto:some.email@address.fi
[3] ftp://ftp.spoogle.com/
[4] http://www.meaning.org/
[5] 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 [6] have hard time knowing where they stop. Take for example http://www.plt-scheme.org/: why is the slash included but the colon not [7] ? (Another example is http://c2.com/cgi/quickChanges, or http://sange.fi/~atehwa/index.html...)
[6] the reader
[7] 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 [8] and another [9] .
[8] ./foo.html
[9] ../index.html

Does the old-style footnote [10] work anymore in the presence of link abbreviations [11] ? [12]
[10] such as this one here
[11] as tested by this file
[12] And does it work if broken into multiple lines?

  Explicit label (is not guaranteed to work properly)

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)