Can you unpack this statement, please?
> On May 5, 2015, at 9:48 PM, Burghart Marjorie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> While others consider that we are all in the same boat, that maintaining the possibility to display an edition (born-digital or not) according to the age-old conventions of philological scholarship is a necessity, and that the view and intentions of an editor-in-print are just a way to express the representation of a multi-witness text.
It’s that last part that I’m having a hard time understanding. Are you saying that the visualization of data otherwise known as a traditional printed critical edition is just one among many ways to represent a multi-witness text? Or are you saying something else? Sorry for being dense. I just want to make sure that I’m following your argument.