I think that the presence of two...
I think that the presence of two solutions to the Raw Flaw diffuses the arguments. There is only one possible enduring solution: adoption of a single, self-defining, extensible industry standard for raw file encoding, built into every camera.
To put a point on it: if Adobe's proposed standard is as good as any, then that's the one for me. They have not displayed the pissy nature of other software giants in fiercely protecting their once proprietary formats. And they don't sell cameras. Perfect! As a reward, they should win the prize, if being credited without monetary benefit with creating a public domain format is a prize of any kind. By "pissy", I refer to Microsoft (of all damn companies) demanding restitution from everyone who uses their pathetic but popular FAT system on memory modules; and Compuserve being upset about others using their GIF file format. Adobe, where the lights are on and everyone is home, have eagerly accepted the common adoption of their Portable Document Format.
Why is a single format better than many that are publicly understood? The idea of having camera makers publish their formats yields the problem of everyone else having to write software to interpret them. For buyers of cameras from less-than-popular makers, this could be an unpleasant problem. Who would bother? Think of how cheap it will be. You never have to load up new software just to read someone's raw files again.
Consider where we would be if the data communications world could not settle on common protocols. We'd all be converting our brains out just to get an email in the door. And we'd be constantly buying nasty little gizmos from avaricious little trolls just to connect to a local internet provider. If, ten years from now, I can read the raw files from a camera that was released to the public 3 weeks earlier, I'd say we will be where we want to be.
So what do I mean by "self-defining" and "extensible"? "Self-defining" means that new information can be added without confusing old software because every file contains a description of the data as well as the data itself. This is important but not a biggy - EXIF already qualifies. "Extensible" means that new information can be added without changing the standard, because the standard accounts for it. It implies that, as the format matures along with photo technology, the extensions will not include re-definitions of how commonly understood "old" information is stored. Software that can read CRF 5.2.3 should have no trouble with a file encoded as CRF 3.1.1 (I made that up - CRF means Common Raw Format) and vice versa.
A bright future also requires that the format bullies restrain themselves, quite unlike the way Microsoft and Cisco have done in the past. Every manufacturer will create their own software and add their own extensions to their files. Big industry players putting vital information into self-indulgent extensions will mean that everyone else will have to follow suit to keep up. Microsoft tried to force their Java language extensions onto the world until the courts told them they were violating their agreement with Sun MicroSystems. Bill decided to create his own language (C#, and an entire framework to carry it - .net), in retaliation. Cisco is known to bully others on the standards committees into working with their flavours of emerging protocols, MPLS being an example: "This is how we're going to encode routing information. Our equipment is everywhere. Ignore us at your peril."
In summary, publicizing proprietary formats is only a stop-gap solution for existing formats. The most enduring solution will be an industry standard that anyone who wants to sell cameras will have to live with.
That should hold me for now.