2. (modern) In editions of classical as well as of mediaeval texts, the orthography is often regularisednormalised. Although there are variations in this practice, the tendency seems to be that Latin texts especially from antiquity, are being edited with a regularised orthography, and to a less extent also Latin texts from medieval mediaeval times. The question of regularising normalised Latin texts has been debated on numerous occasions, notably in the journal Symbolae Osloenses (vol. 76), in which Heinz Hofmann argues strongly for regularisationnormalisation, while Hans Helander argues for keeping the orthography of medieval mediaeval Latin texts unchanged (Helander 2001).
As for vernacular texts from the Middle Ages, there is generally no standard orthography, so these editions tend to keep the orthography of the main manuscript. See, however, the discussion of Old High German regularised normalised orthography in the entry on Lachmann’s method.For For Old Norse texts (i.e. Old Icelandic and Old Norwegian), a fairly strict standard orthography was developed in the 19th century. Many Old Norse editions, e.g. in the Íslenzk fornrit series, use this regularised normalised orthography (commonly referred to as “normalortografi” in the Scandinavian languages). This normalised orthography is also the one found in standard grammars and dictionaries of Old Norse. The delineation of Old Norse orthography is discussed at some length by Ludwig F. A. Wimmer (1877, pp. v-xxvii).
A special case of regularisation normalisation is the one used in eclectic editions based on sources with varying orthography. In these editions, a uniform orthography is usually chosen. Often, it is the orthography of the main manuscript (Copy copy text) on which the edition is based, but especially in the case of Old Norse texts, it can be the normalised orthography referred to above.
3. (for computers) In the course of the process of editing a textpreparation of the witness's data in collation, especially when using computer-assisted methods to study its development and the transmission, certain orthographical orthographic features of the text – such as the use of capital letters, use of ‘v’ instead of ‘u’, ‘c’ instead of ‘t’ and the versatile use of ‘e’, ‘ae’ and e caudata (ę) – may need to be unified, since such features are subject to much variation in the manuscript traditions. Even this This may be referred to as “normalisation”. It is done for instance by Roelli / Bachmann 2010.
– Roelli, Philipp and Dieter Bachmann, Towards Generating a Stemma of Complicated Manuscript Traditions: Petrus Alfonsi’s Dialogus, in: Revue d’histoire des textes n.s. 5 (2010), pp. 307-321.