FJ's Hávamál text is, without question, the cleanest in publication.
While his text reflects the true metricity of HM verses in the older
language, here are some points toward using FJ as the basis of a
pada-text. Pada-text is Anglicized Indian usage, and refers to the
ancient Hindu scholars' practice of writing the scriptures in 2
versions: a pada- and non-pada-version (foot- and non-foot-version),
the former without contracted forms, the latter with. The practice
is related to Indian metrics. For Norse, a good pada-version might
look something like this:

gefe,ndr he,ilir : g,estr es inn kominn :
(instead of 'ge,str's inn kominn') but:
mio,k es bráþr : sás á bro,ndum skal : (both verse 2)
- the rule here: contract the particle 'es', as was always done in
appropriate environments, but not the 3rd sg.pres. es (<vesa), as it
tends to cause problems in pronunciation and elementary perception;
the advanced reader can learn the simple rule of contracting the
verbal 'es' in appropriate environments and pronounce it that way if
he so chooses, while printing non-pada contracted verbal 'es' gives
the reader no options, even though the relative partical 'es' must
be contracted (it even occurs frequently in prose/normal speech in
the homily books); inscriptions give mixed signals on contacted
verbal 'es', while the scaldic evidence favours complete contraction

at hyggiandi sinni : skylit maþr hrø'sinn vesa :
(instead of 'skylit hrø'sinn vesa'
byrþi be,tri : berrat maþr brautu at :
(instead of 'berrat brautu at'
- the rule here: show the many extra 'maþr's and 'hann's, even if
they are anti-metrical and unnecessary for advanced readers, even if
we all know the subject is always 'maþr/hann/sá/hinn', as it helps
complete the sentence (as a prose item) and aids in perception; CR
tends to use the naked M-rune in the nominitive, which saves space
and is probably not a bad idea

These suggestions are simply generalized orthographical rules of
thumb, and are negotiable items for sure, but I thought that the
idea of a pada-text might have some applications in Norse.

esa svá gótt :
se,m gótt kveþa :
o,l alda sonum :
(þvíat) fé,ra ve,it :
es fle,ira drekkr :
síns til ge,þs gumi :

About explanatory, and often unneeded 'þvíat', see FJ himself. One
idea is two drop them altogether, allowing, for instance, the two
half-verses above to stand one before the other as 2 numbered items
(even if, as in this case, they are clearly related and the 'þvíat'
justified). This has the advantage of helping us to memorize the
half-verses alone, which can be understood alone and quoted thus.
Another idea is to keep them together and as one numbered item in
all cases when they clearly belong together, as here. I tend to go
with the latter idea, suggesting that the reader can make his/her
own list of half-verses if he/she chooses. But both ideas are, on
the face of it, strong. Readers familiar with Norse metrics tend to
have various ideas about such matters, but in as much as the issue
is standardization, whole verses are probably a better bet when
applicable. Lastly, and on a different topic, the 'þvíat' and the
dative pl. 'sonum' show above. FJ corrected his text religiously.
Here are a couple of points where I think it should be corrected a
bit further: 1) þvít > þít - FJ was aware, and even states in his
grammar, that þí survived in Icelandic up to his time, even if the
old books almost always show því; furthermore, Faro. tí NNorw. di
Dan. di, etc.; the old form þí never fully died, and even became
universal in some sister-languages; so, I'm not sure why FJ's text
still shows 'því', perhaps familiarity, as he knew which was older,
but the killer here is the non-occurance of 'því' is west norse
runic inscription from the 10-11th centuries, which he could not
have known about at that time, but may have suspected - instead, þí
occurs - thus, as this langauge is what FJ's text is to show, then
we should amend to 'þí' 2) sonum - FJ tends shows 'sunr' in the
nominitive (sunr's be,tri Pada: sunr es be,tri) and was well aware
of this words dual-declension history, ending up in MIce thus: sonur
son syni sonar synir syni sonum sona - a mixed declension with a new
accus.pl. from i-stems; in the earliest written Icelandic, as well
as in the earliest written Norwegian, two full paradigms occurs for
this word (in the homily books - perhaps after hand, but copying
could be a factor):

sunr sun syni sunar synir sunu sunum suna
sonr son søni sonar sønir sonu sonum sona

Explanations for this are various and many-sided, and dating is a
problem, but this issue is hardly complicated in making a choice for
FJ's text, as sunr is older, regardless of in how many dialects or
how early sonr appeared, or to what degree they where mixed and when
and by whom; here we should rule on the side of conservatism and
show the sunr-paradigm througout - we know that it was spoken in
10th cent. west norse (FJ's language), even if some folk in some
dialects may have had sonr - in fact, Þjóðolfr af Hvini alliterates
sunr in Haustlöng, and I recall seeing other instances in scaldic
poetry from the 10th. Perhaps Eysteinn remembers, as he is brilliant
in this area. Anyway, I think using FJ's classic text is the best
way to go for HM, only making minor changes for the HM the he covers
and always in accordance with solid linguistic evidence established
later than FJ or for simplicity's sake (if optional, like the pada-
ideas above, which are strictly optional). More on this thread later.

Regards,
-K