VK <schools_ring@y...> scripsit:

> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>> I'm saying that - no matter which specific HTML DTD were to be called
>> out from the above DOCTYPE - the result could be an HTML fragment,
>> but it would be unreasonable to claim it as an "HTML document".
>
> You have no choice but claim it as "HTML document".

Surely there's the option of being silent? And, in fact, saying that it is 
not an HTML document.

> It is served from
> the served with "Content-Type: text/html",

So what? Serving it as image/gif would not make it a GIF image. The Internet 
media type would be incorrectly declared. A Content-Type declaration does 
not magically _make_ the data conform to the specification of a specific 
media type.

> for local files it is
> served as the same type by association .html,.htm... --> text/html.

That's a rule that you just made up. Besides, nobody said the filename 
suffix is .html or .htm. For all that you can know, it can be .gif or .foo.

> So before any DTD you /have/ to explicetly declare what document you
> are serving

Nope. Nobody forces you to serve a document on the Internet, or using HTTP 
in particular.

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/