This revision doesn't interest me at all.  Unless I go through it at a bookstore and it turns out to be as useful as a book by Watson, it's going to stay on the shelf.  Of course, I'm curious to see what sort of revisions de Firmian makes, but I'm not willing to invest my money in such an enterprise.  (That is, buy the book.)

'I didn't think of that mostly because the analysis in Capa's book is so simple.  You know, "fundamental".'

Well, Capa always had this uncanny knack of making chess games look very simple. Simple opening strategy, very clear middlegame positions, no indulgence in highly complicated tactical/combinational play unless it was the simplest way to win & even so his combinations were simple ones. Needless to say his endgame technique seemed effortless. which all adds up to the beauty of his games.

But you could be right about the addition of extra material too. If that's the case it wld be more appropriate to just call it 'extended' rather than 'revised'. 'revised' to me means updating the existing material eg descriptive notation to algebric & more dubiously improving upon original analysis& attributing it to the original author. Imo that is pretty disrespetful to the original author even if he has long  returned home to the Lord.

I suspect he used computer assistance to update Capa's analysis just like what Batsford & John Nunn did to Fischer's My 60 Memorable Games.