. Please jump back.
I want you to consider an unadored relative link and
another.
Does the old-style footnote[1] work anymore in the presence of link abbreviations[2]?[3]
[1] such as this one here
[2] as tested by this file
[3] And
does it work if broken into
multiple lines?
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 [4] block. Do we manage it?
[4] 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. [5].
[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…) And nowadays, you should be able to break long links onto multiple lines, exactly as demonstrated here[8].
[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.
[8] which is marvellous, or course
http://www.now.com/, here are some [9] cases of borderline cases between ./Stx-ref.html and normal link syntaces at the beginning of [10][].
[9] See e.g. removal of link data blocks
[10] lines
Here is also an . Please jump back.
I want you to consider an unadored relative link and
another.
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)