11 ms·

That’s how I read it. What do you mean then? It sounds like the only edition you may offer is the editorialized one, if applicable. As someone who writes I gre

• contact9879 2y ago
  I think it's important to note that in the past, typesetters and printers had a much more editorial role than the process today. Authors would submit handwritten manuscripts and the typesetters in many cases would have to fix the author's mistakes, spelling, etc. to conform the manuscripts to printing standards with the author having limited communication or ability to proof the final plates Today, it's much easier for authors to have a greater say in the final presentation due to the digital composition process
  • Brian_K_White 2y ago
    You can't use an appeal to tradition as the argument for revision. I don't see why anyone should care that publishers have edited in the past anyway, even in this particular discussion where my own argument is for conservation. Publishers have done all kinds of things that this very project itself criticises and pointedly set themselves apart by doing differently. So, it's a weak argument for them. Aside from that, what any other publishers do, even if it's totally common and even universal, doesn't change the argument that they were making that they wish to suggest that those edits cross a line that fixing typos doesn't cross.
• joseda-hg 2y ago
  By the time they reach the public domain they aren't though, and the public can and should do with them as they see fit Modernizing / adapting is the least damaging change to be done here