The accidental maximalist: Or, what's so minimal about minimal editions?

The PDF file includes written remarks and visual supports. The interactive slides may be found at https://slides.francescagiannetti.com/tei2024.html. Abstract Minimal editions have become popular because they answer the problem of curating texts under a set of constraints. However, encoding and publication workflows, even for minimal editions, run the risk of becoming bloated if the editor loses sight of the project’s priorities. Over a project’s life cycle, it is normal that these priorities will shift under the pressure of this or that constraint or challenge. Several authors have noted that minimal computing stacks displace complexity away from users and onto the editor or technical partner (Dombrowski 2022; Giannetti 2019; Hughes 2016). Identifying the *necessary* technical complexity is rarely easy. I focus on the latter two of Risam and Gil’s four-question heuristic for minimal computing—“what must we prioritize?”; and “what are we willing to give up?”—in order to demonstrate the importance of reengaging with these questions as new challenges come to light (Risam and Gil 2022). With the Personal Correspondence from the Rutgers College War Service Bureau, I initially made choices consonant with a minimal approach. The edition navigation replicated the file structure of the archival collection, organized by the name of the alumnus serving in World War I. The project schema exhibited straightforward choices regarding the encoding of people, places, and events. However, the plan to capture biographical information on each Rutgers person mentioned nearly ran aground when a single soldier mentioned fifty classmates in his letters. A desire for a more enriching reader experience led to a choice to provide subject access to the letters, which in turn brought classification and UI difficulties. In this case study, I provide substance to the hard decisions editors face amidst evolving priorities and the need to curtail some plans. Documentation of best practices in this area will serve other editors who must make pragmatic choices in the service of local knowledge production.