Ignore the second quote, as it does not apply to this thread at all.
What's researched here does not
provide any reason to replace the CR2 format for regular still pictures.
- Better compression? In our DNGs, compression is not any better or worse than CR2; it is identical.
- Saving a conversion step (if you convert to DNG anyway)? Not a good reason for justifying the development effort IMO.
- Additional EXIF info? Maybe, but XMP works
and is minimally invasive to Canon code.
- "Quality loss from converting your Canon RAW files into DNGs"? There's none. Once uncompressed, raw data is 100% identical (check with e.g. dcraw -4 -E after converting a CR2 with Adobe DNG Converter).
It's all about the files saved by ML features (silent pictures, possibly raw video). Maybe also opening the door to MJPEG.