
! Testing link abbreviations

First paragraph. It does
not have anything weird.

[1] This is a footnote.
[2] This is a longer footnote,
    possibly spanning multiple lines.
[3] http://www.ithaka.net/
[4] ftp://ftp.spoogle.com/
[5] mailto:some.email@address.fi
[6] img:pictures/zebra

[7] Foobar.  I just want to show off.

[+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
[linkdata] block.  Do we manage it?

Okay, now for the real[5] thing.  There should be all [kinds of][4]
links here.  See "[Testing link abbreviations]" to get a hold of what
they all mean[http://www.meaning.org/].  [2].

[azimuth] img:http://zooie.org/pict/flounder
[RFC1355] ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1355.txt

There are longer links: [RFC1355] and friends.  The problem with
URIs[RFC2396] is that you[the reader] have hard time knowing where they stop.
Take for example http://www.plt-scheme.org/: why is the slash included but
[the colon not][note1]?  (Another example is
http://c2.com/cgi/quickChanges, or http://sange.fi/~atehwa/index.html...)

[note1] 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 [inline image][6].  Please jump back[Second paragraph].
I want you to consider an [unadored relative link][./foo.html] and
another[../index.html].

Does the old-style footnote[[ such as this one here ]] work anymore in
the presence of link abbreviations[[-as tested by this file-]]?[[-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)

