RE: A non-forking server, precussor revisited.

"Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com> wrote:
> So how about the following.  Just change the postcondition
> of COPY to say that the COPY "MAY" update the precursor set.
> Is this OK with everyone?

No.  I think we should either make it mandatory or scrap it altogether.
Unless you have at least one 'compelling' use case for each option offered
by "MAY" (i.e. COPY should update the DAV:precursor-set property, and COPY
should not update the DAV:precursor-set property) then we are doing a
disservice to clients by stating that servers can choose.
In this case, unless someone can defend the property I suggest we remove
it.

Tim