str.startswith allows you to supply a tuple of strings to test for:

if link.lower().startswith(("js", "catalog", "script", "katalog")):

From the docs:

str.startswith(prefix[, start[, end]])

Return True if string starts with the prefix, otherwise return False. prefix can also be a tuple of prefixes to look for.

Below is a demonstration:

>>> "abcde".startswith(("xyz", "abc"))
True
>>> prefixes = ["xyz", "abc"]
>>> "abcde".startswith(tuple(prefixes)) # You must use a tuple though
True
>>>

There is technically no reason to accept other sequence types, no. The source code roughly does this:

if isinstance(prefix, tuple):
    for substring in prefix:
        if not isinstance(substring, str):
            raise TypeError(...)
        return tailmatch(...)
elif not isinstance(prefix, str):
    raise TypeError(...)
return tailmatch(...)

(where tailmatch(...) does the actual matching work).

So yes, any iterable would do for that for loop. But, all the other string test APIs (as well as isinstance() and issubclass()) that take multiple values also only accept tuples, and this tells you as a user of the API that it is safe to assume that the value won't be mutated. You can't mutate a tuple but the method could in theory mutate the list.

Also note that you usually test for a fixed number of prefixes or suffixes or classes (in the case of isinstance() and issubclass()); the implementation is not suited for a large number of elements. A tuple implies that you have a limited number of elements, while lists can be arbitrarily large.

Next, if any iterable or sequence type would be acceptable, then that would include strings; a single string is also a sequence. Should then a single string argument be treated as separate characters, or as a single prefix?

So in other words, it's a limitation to self-document that the sequence won't be mutated, is consistent with other APIs, it carries an implication of a limited number of items to test against, and removes ambiguity as to how a single string argument should be treated.

Note that this was brought up before on the Python Ideas list; see this thread; Guido van Rossum's main argument there is that you either special case for single strings or for only accepting a tuple. He picked the latter and doesn't see a need to change this.