....but as long as you get the words, who cares what the quote marks look like?
There are a lot of texts where you cannot "get" the words from just the words. There are also texts with quotes within quotes, where if you don't care what the quote marks look like _you cannot read it!_ Certainly a text like Tristram Shandy demonstrates there are books which are NOT just about the words -- where rather, the artistry of representing word on paper -- including careful choice of fonts, puncs, etc. is a central part of the artistry -- as one can easily see by comparing a bad publication of this work to a good one! The good publications represent the work of the artist, the bad one's clearly do not. And a txt representation would be just so many chicken scratchings in the mud. I'm sure there are many here who would say "but I don't like Tristram Shandy" -- and that would be my point. By bringing a prejudice to the table that only texts worth representing in txt are worth representing, you prejudice what books PG is allowed to preserve, and you censor the choice of artists that others are permitted to preserve. You represent some artists, and consign the others to oblivion.