<p>Opinions differ, but <strong>SE's official position on this question</strong> appears to be reflected in a <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/82865/should-tiny-edits-be-accepted-or-rejected-in-review">Jeff Atwood answer on SO Meta last year</a>, concerning "tiny edit[s], like capitalising a single letter, or removing only the salutation from a post."</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I completely agree -- reject them, with extreme prejudice.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are <strong>subtle implications</strong> of edits that reviewers should be aware of:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Users are awarded badges for making lots of edits, editing old posts, etc. Do you want to encourage abusers who make dozens or hundreds of trivial edits in pursuit of a silver or gold star?</p></li>
<li><p>Any edit opens a post up to re-voting: existing votes can freely be removed by the people who made them.</p></li>
<li><p>Sometimes even a tiny edit materially changes the correctness or meaning of a post. When that happens, trouble brews.</p></li>
<li><p>Edited posts become "active" and appear in the list of questions.</p></li>
</ul>

<p>For the last reason alone, any edit made to a post really ought to be of sufficient import to make the post worthy to be re-read by community members.  (It's annoying to check out a reactivated post only to find that somebody merely turned a "1" into a "$1$", or capitalized a keyword, or whatever.)  The penultimate reason implies that conscientious editors and reviewers are expending considerable time and effort: let's not unduly increase those demands for the sake of an unattainable perfection.</p>
