Re: Exploiting Bobby (was RE: Alternative validation tools.)

On Sat, 21 Dec 2002, Timothy J. Luoma wrote:

> Interesting that the W3C has been able to keep both the CSS and HTML
> validators online, up and running (with few exceptions) without these same
> problems.

On a single Linux box, that could be duplicated comfortably for $100
in todays market (that's the HTML validator - not sure about the CSS).


> I'm willing to bet they see more traffic than Bobby.

But Bobby spent its last three years or so at CAST based on very, very
broken technology.

> So why does Bobby have such trouble?  It is that much more intensive?

Having just bad-mouthed bobby, I should say in their defence that I
would reserve the right to limit access to Valet if I thought it was
being abused.  And that doesn't necessarily imply abuse of a kind
that would put a strain on the server.  OTOH, I would at least seek
to do so without flagrantly violating HTTP.  W3.org is different:
their tools are - as they can and indeed must be - explicitly
non-commercial.

-- 
Nick Kew

Received on Saturday, 21 December 2002 11:19:28 UTC