## 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 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?

### 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)