Dot, what a very good job! I am only a bit surprised that we are not making steady progress towards some goal -- that's not really the wqy human beings do things -- but it is a litttle disconcerting to think that while more and more people are doing digital or difitized editions (I agree with that very ueful distinction), users of editions seem ro remain happy with print. If I were younger (I was there at Hoyt's PP/SEENET paper). I might try to think of some kind of campaign, but perhaps it's best to let things develop as they will ?

I took part to a workshop about digital scholarly edition organized by NeDiMAH last November (http://www.nedimah.eu/call-for-papers/expert-meeting-digital-scholarly-editi...) and gave a paper titled "The battle we forgot to fight: Should we make a case for digital editions?". In short, no, I think we should definitely advocate creation and use of digital editions ... but also that first we should define more clearly what a digital edition *is*, see Dot's distinction above as a starting point (there surely are many other types and sub-types). Personally I think we lack a clear perspective and need a sort of "DEI" (Digital Edition Initiative) that can help interested scholars with support, guidelines etc. (also help gather together, conferences like ESTS and such are very useful, but we lack a "central" place where to go).

R