Re: [rfc-i] archiving outlinks in RFCs

[Eliot Lear <[e-mail]>]

Alexis,

On 27.04.23 21:58, Alexis Rossi wrote:
> 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 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.

I like the concept.  Would we operate a link farm that periodically 
checked status?

  * Who is responsible for archiving a link?
  * What permissions does one need to do that?  Should it be automated?
  * Does anyone make use use <link rel archives="..."> for this
    purpose?  I was looking at the definition and it's very loosy goosy.
  * I'm no fan of pop-ups to resolve, well, anything, as they make for
    miserable user experiences.

Eliot