If I understand, it is up to the WWers to decide whether to accept vanity epubs.
When PG or DP produces something that is obviously broken and if another volunteer volunteers to fix it, that is hardly "vanity" -- a term chosen by those who have their own agenda which is to try to throw away all the HTML that has been produced by PG and DP volunteers over the years replacing it with something that has dumbed-down formatting ala feedbooks. But, no, right now the WWers do not decide whether to accept hand-fixed epubs that actually work. PG is policy is that PG *does not* accept these fixed epubs period, meaning that the epub reader has no choice other than to read something which is broken -- or to "pop the top" and fix it themselves [but in practice its faster to fix the HTML version and then regen the epub from that] Given that a bunch of us are already fixing epub and mobi for our own private use so that it presents in a reasonable way rather than as "scrambled eggs," is it then "vanity" of us to want to submit these back to PG so that each and every epub PG customer doesn't have to make the same repairs -- or to have to read "scrambled eggs?" Or is the "vanity" that of those who refuse to allow this practical step to move forward improving the situation, instead insisting on being "the dogs guarding the straw" -- each insisting that PG must accept *their own* particular Tower of Babel source language "or else." "Vanity" keeps them from even agreeing among themselves. PG *already* has TWO "feedbook-like" source languages which don't capture any of the original books' formatting, namely RST and txt70. PG doesn't need to invent yet-another one. That would be "vanity."