[Prestidigitweeze]

What I find odd is that people are responding to GG's query as if it pertained to every future book they might own. I find her ideas interesting because they pertain to specific books that she's considering creating.

We can always return to the formatting of every other book. Why not check out GG's results before condemning them in theory? Have you seen her editions of Mark Twain? They're damned interesting, and in no small part because she tries to retain the flavor of the printed edition.

GG:

When you're incorporating later changes into an earlier edition, one thing to consider is whether the later edition is authoritative. Editors of early editions of Emily Dickinson changed her idiosyncratic punctuation because they thought it was incorrect, but later editors restored it. In her case, I'd go with the later edition.

However, other editions of earlier books, such as De Quincey's Confessions of an English Opium Eater, are considered to be less concise than the originals. Most readers prefer De Quincey's dream narrative as it was originally published, not the later tome which became a compendium of narrative-undermining digressions. Keats's "Load every rift with ore" led to Lard every cleft with air.

Sometimes it's best to create editions for each version. Cf. facsimile editions of Alice's Adventures Underground, which, as you probably know, is the earliest presentable version of Alice in Wonderland and features illustrations by Carroll himself. Imagine trying to create one version out of both. The only solution would be to include both versions in their entirety sequentially.