HTML is not statically typed... but so what?

Dion Almaer made an interesting point recently:

A friend ... talked about how it is interesting that HTML is not statically typed, yet it has scaled pretty well. The internet architecture has made this happen. We are loosely coupled and modules (pages/site) are seperated out.
Except that HTML itself really had nothing to do with the architecture of the Web, Dion--it is just a presentation format. We could have been "just" as successful in growing the Web (from a scalability perspective) had the presentation format been PDF, Flash, or you name it. It was the Architecture of the World Wide Web that led to the organic and anarchic scability of the Web, not HTML itself. The fact that HTML is dynamically typed (and I take issue with that, as well: HTML isn't typed in the traditional sense of the term, nor is XML for that matter) is a red herring.

Ruby has its merits, Dion--you don't need to make spurious comparisons to try and justify it. Let programmers discover the beauty that is dynamically-typed programming on their own.