[...] just what is a web browser and what is the difference among them?
[...] the browser is 'supposed' to interpret internet standards like Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) and more recently Extensible Markup Language (XML) [....]
It might be best for many
to take at least 1 step back from technicalities in the the soapbox exercise above (altho' I agree with the sentiments expressed).
As a preliminary, try to imagine what the once-sci-fi-only notion of an "information appliance
" (or comparable term) might be like, whether from Star Trek, the Foundation
series by Asimov, or Disney's Tomorrowland.Now
, imagine that as a traditionalist saddened by the complacency of mainstream "Catholics", you've decided to use the anniversary of the newfangled Novus Ordo Missæ
(3 Apr. 1969) as a hook for writing & distributing an educational document to members of your original Novus Ordo
parish who continue to appear in its pews.
To make your case for the traditional Mass, you'd like to refer extensively to the encyclical Mediator Dei
(1947), on the liturgy, by Pope Pius XII, and to Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the New, All-English Canon
(1967), by traditionalist author Patrick Henry Omlor (ob.
2 May 2013).
It's probably safe to assume that members of your old parish haven't got copies of papal encyclicals from 2/3 century ago. By definition, encyclicals are written for distribution, so it'd probably be fair game to photocopy a translation of the encyclical, and attach it as appendix 1 to your own writings. But (for discussion's sake, let's say) Omlor's work is no longer 'in print'; if you can arrange to get your hands on a borrowed copy, 1 option is to spend serious quality time with a photocopier, page after page, until you've got it all. Alas, it still won't be your
intellectual property to distribute: It's Omlor's
. Considering that he's on our side, and maybe derives all
his income from writing, simply photocopying it as your appendix 2, if not a matter of theft
, would be at least uncharitable. Even if you decided that his death freed you from those concerns, I'm assuming that your document with only 2 sources thus far, each included as an appendix, is already getting rather long. So your prospective photocopying/printing costs would be climbing quickly, never mind postage. Do you have any more appealing options?
If you were writing original material on the World-Wide Web
(which is just 1 of the many aspects of the Internet
), you wouldn't need to actually get your hands on hardcopy of those 2 referenced documents. You would simply incorporate a special reference, known as a hyperlink
(nowadays usually--less hyperbolically--called a link
), to each document. Your goal for access would then be met simply by finding where
the 2 documents reside on line--if
they do, of course.
This brings us back to the basic function of a browser
: It's the software component that's most visible to a user within that "information appliance", and is used like an application program
(pay no attention to Microsoft's fraudulent insistence that its browser is a fundamental
part of its operating system). It interprets addresses of links to information on the Web
, then loads & displays whatever it finds at those links. How does it get to the original material that you wrote? By a user giving it a Web address that has the same syntax as a Web address in a link. Clever, no?
In this example, you'd be in luck: Unlike with some other encyclicals, the Vatican Web site has this Pius XII encyclical on line (odd how the Vatican somehow hasn't got other antimodernist encyclicals by Pius IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, and Pius XI on line). But this one can be easily found with a search engine of your choice. Also this work by Omlor, identified as "Internet release with permission of the author", on what bills itself as "the Aquinas site".
So praise the Lord, then look for the best place in your original writing to insert 1 hyperlink each to those 2 documents. That's after your writing has explained why
a skeptical Novus Ordo
reader should care about them at all. The links might not be especially effective if you fail to explain what the reader should expect to find, or be looking for, when arriving at each linked document. One thing the reader typically wouldn't care about is whether--or not--the referenced documents are actually being loaded from the same place on the Internet where he|she located & loaded your writing: Each document is just a file to be loaded, using a particular standard type of digital communication. At least as things stand in the U.S.A., once a reader is logged on to an Internet service, there's no greater charge for that reader's browser
to load a file from overseas than from a neighboring county or shire (e.g.: Vatican City vs. south-central Texas).
Beware that the notion of information on the Web
is extremely broad, and often referred to by the sterile-sounding collective term "content" (as phrased in the collective language in which, e.g., corporations no longer "deliver products
", but instead "ship product"). "Content" encompasses digital data ranging from incisive writing, excellent photographic images, newsworthy video, and award-winning movies and t.v., thro' silly frivolities, the alleged wisdom of Bart Simpson, juvenile bloated 1-MB video loops showing "celebrities" doing nothing more than shaking their heads or wagging their fingers, all the waaay down to discussion, still images, or video of disgusting activity in the metaphorical gutter.