foo bar
Darn.
Hm. on it’s own perhaps?
Test
telnet://www.vertigo.darktech.org
another test.
<!-- And how are comments processed? -->
Hm. So link protocols are allowed. presumably gopher, or, say, mailto: would work too.
gopher null
mail me!
Pity about the encoding of & it limits the use of useful character encodings. The only reason I can think of is for fear of losing track of < and > in multiple evaluations, or something. Or just bastardliness.
[any slips?](kyber tries to be clever)
[any slips?](kyber tries to be clever)
[any slips?](kyber tries to be clever)
ooh! Couple more!
[any slips?](kyber tries" to be clever)
[any slips?]('kyber “tries” to be 'clever)
Woohoo! Just realised something about current browser bizaareness!!!
Testing with Google button cause it is easiest…
[Google button javascript!](javascript:q=document.getSelection();for(i=0;i<frames.length;i++){q=frames*.document.getSelection();if(q)break;}if(!q)void(q=prompt(‘Enter text to search using Google. You can also highlight a word on this web page before clicking GoogleSearch.’,’’));if(q)location.href='http://www.google.com/search?client=googlet&q=’+escape(q))
In case there are limitations on quotes…
[null](javascript:foo.bar()
Oh well… I suppose that javascript would only work if I could convince somebody to drag it up onto their nav bar. 
Well, that was fun. Off to the forums…
HTML character codes work if you preview them first. Interestingly, they seem to resolve to the actual character, so if you construct a code out of the codes and preview multiple times, it’ll all evaluate.
Clear?
Sounds clear. Let me try a few common ones.
-> <-
&trad; it’s either that or ®
Hm. So, <b> will resolve to <b>?
Odd, wasn’t quite clear, but I think I understand now. It didn’t show up right in the first preview, but the textwindow contained the right characters. The second preview evaluated everything bee-autifully.
Cool! Now’s time to throw in unicode! Kanji on demand!