User feedback and testimonials

That digital editions website is really nicely done. There is a slight wiggle on the documentation pages on my iPhone 6+, but other than that, it looks nice. Plus, I *really* like the content of the documentation pages. It is so clearly written, it should be a model for writing documentation. Everything, from the license info to the funding, how to cite, and the description of the various components, it is really well done. Bravo!

Grazie per il lavoro enorme che hai fatto con il tuo D[ata]base, che è davvero uno strumento utilissimo per le ricerche a tutti i livelli!

Another limitation of reviews for digital publications thus far is that they tend to be quite isolated, both by type within any given review publication, and from publication to publication. While there are cross-publisher directories of digital publications like AAUP's aforementioned Directory of Digital Publishing Projects, and the independent Directory of Open Access Journals ( that can cover a great scope of subject matter, these directories and the individual reviews and review publications offer little in the way of comparisons of the type that might help us better understand the field and evaluate its trends. One notable exception to this is the Catalogue of Digital Editions, by Greta Franzini (, who defines "digital edition" for these purposes as a critical edition that is not merely a facsimile edition, but one that takes advantage of its digital space and that fully "represents its material (usually as transcribed/edited text)" (Franzini). Though limited to its own particular subset of digital publishing activity, Franzini's Catalogue comprises a dataset of some 230 digital editions, currently, with some fifty consistent and comparable pieces of data on each, that range from the edition's subject matter and URL, to its features, textual encoding scheme, and technological infrastructure. While it takes a more object, data-focused approach to reviewing and cataloguing the included editions, the Catalogue also uniquely offers the possibility of rich comparison and analysis across publications, even if that more subjective and evaluative work is yet to be done. It may also someday provide a model to be applied to the evaluation of other types of digital publishing projects, specifically like the Mellon-funded university press projects, the Getty's OSCI collaborative, and other open access, scholarly editions which have been the subject of our history here thus far.

What a nifty resource and cool website!

Discussing @GretaFranzini’s catalogue of digital editions [...] #dixit Great resource, in addition to @patrick_sahle’s!

@GretaFranzini This list is great. [...]


For general comments and suggestions, please email Greta Franzini at
For specific requests, bug reports or corrections, please create GitHub issues in the relevant repository.

We'd love to hear from you!