Hi Margo, I vote for "D"...."None of the above"!! Or, from a more optimistic approach, "All of the above??" I would go with a "tweaked version" of your third option, a combination of old and modern, but the way you describe it, it sounds like it might be too confusing, leaving people to wonder what HAS been updated, and what has not. I think the least confusing and most historically accurate approach would be to keep the documents original, but explain what different forms would be now. Either include what the modern term would be in brackets after the 17th century form....such as "Iohn Aueril" {John Averill}, or "ivst" {just} and "vsed" {used}. OR, better still, include a glossary of 17th century word forms and their 21st century counterparts. That way, you don't have to put brackets after EVERY "ivst" entry, but anyone who is confussed by the word "ivst" can just flip to the back of the book and find out what it means!! In my humble opinion, glossaries are the GREATEST things since sliced bread!! Just my two cents! Joan In a message dated 5/15/2003 11:10:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, margo@ogram.org writes: > A decision needs to be made as to whether to stay with our current > literal transcriptions, modernize it all, or modernize some while > retaining some seventeenth-century forms. A leading possibilty for this > third option would be to retain superscripts and abbreviations, > including "thorn," while modernizing v, i, and ff as u, j, and F. >