Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

I wonder if it’s helpful to look at how wikipedia does this currently?  

Reference #260 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#References <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.#References> is formatted like this:

{{cite web|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/mlk/filmmore/pt.html |title=Citizen King Transcript |publisher=PBS |access-date=June 12, 2008 |archive-date=January 25, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130125144003/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/mlk/filmmore/pt.html |url-status=dead }}

Basically, the reference has:
- The originally referenced URL with the date it was cited
- The archived URL with the date it was archived
-The status of the live link (dead) which triggers a change to how the reference displays on the page to favor the archived link. I believe this status determined by a bot run by the community.

If we went with Jay’s idea to just always display both, then perhaps we don’t need that last bit where we know if it’s dead or alive.

Alexis

> On Apr 26, 2023, at 10:12 AM, Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> Jay Daley <exec-director@ietf.org> wrote:
>> If however the format was changed so that clicking on the link brought
>> up a box with further links to both the original and the archived link
>> so that people could choose then i don’t think that requires an RSWG
>> decision.
> 
> I really like this option.
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rfc-interest mailing list
> rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
> https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest