Journal versions are reference by journal name, volume, year, page number, indexing a hard copy version you can find in a library. Seems pretty immutable to me.
The journals I published in all accepted latex. But they convert it to use their layouting software. The last correction steps are typically done only in this version, and the author has to backport them into their tex code.
Why should the journal have any interest in making the arxiv version more attractive?
Even if we ignore reprints, editorial series that rearrange papers (and make a paper citable more than one way), and proceedings (which often don't properly distinguish between papers, but use author + proceeding).
Science simply doesn't operate on journal published papers most of the time. The paper mills run so
hot that you regularly cite preprints, that get exchanged between authors directly.
It happens regularly that the proof is supposedly in the "full paper" only that the "full paper" was never published.
The journals I published in all accepted latex. But they convert it to use their layouting software. The last correction steps are typically done only in this version, and the author has to backport them into their tex code. Why should the journal have any interest in making the arxiv version more attractive?