There is one potentially huge advantage...
There is one potentially huge advantage in persuading (for wont of a better word) the manufacturers to document their raw formats: documented file formats tend to change slower.
If a Canon engineer knows he can make some small changes to the format simply by dropping an email to his colleague down the corridor, he will do it every time he thinks he can get the feature support or quality improvement he wants simply by making a small change. On the other hand, if he knows that he has to go through the entire Canon publication process (probably in multiple languages) for every change, he will work hard to find a way to achieve what he wants within the existing raw format. This will greatly slow down the changes we see.
It would be even better to move to a DNG concept where a standardisation body (ISO for example), owned ISORAW and all manufacturers who wanted to change it had to get agreement from the standards committee. I believe that raw processing is too much in its infancy to enable standardisation as there will be major updates in how raw is processed over the years. We do not want standards to stifle innovation but we do need public formats to slow down unnecessary change and to allow all the developers of the superb third party software we are privilieged to use to do their job.
Andrew
Andrew, you say: "I believe that raw processing is too much...
Andrew, you say: "I believe that raw processing is too much in its infancy to enable standardisation as there will be major updates in how raw is processed over the years".
My first point is that what matters for standardisation is whether there will be major updates in the Raw DATA, not whether there will be major updates in the Raw PROCESSING.
I suspect that the data that has to be stored will change at a slower rate than improvements in processing are made. (Since my camera model was launched, there has been a vast improvement in the Raw processing that can be done, even to the original files).
But the standards world has well-established methods of catering for innovation and new technologies. To get close to this subject, the CompactFlash standard has undergone a number of revisions, (and is now on 3.0). USB went from 1 to 2.0. HTML & CSS have undergone various upgrades, and while the current state is a bit anarchic, it is much better than the days of the "browser wars", which resembled the current "Raw wars" in some ways.
How much digital camera innovation really needs revision to Raw formats, and how much occurs "behind" the format? (Obviously the simple changes such as increases in the number of pixels, and probably the number of bits per pixel, don't need changes to the format).
My question presumably can't be answered for the future - if we could answer it, we could make our fortune! I have tended only to see the major well publicised changes, such as the Foveon sensor, Fujifilm's dual diodes, etc. How often do these happen, and what sort of minor changes are taking place that don't get this publicity, but would still need Raw format changes?