WIP: Rfc5 review replies pt. 2

[jo-mueller]

Fixes #402
Fixes #358
Fixes #351
Fixes #357
Fixes #356
Fixes #359
Fixes #332
Fixes #101
Fixes #84

RFC5 review replies round 2

This PR contains and documents the output of numerous discussions at the recent NGFF Hackathon in Zürich and in discussion forums (i.e., github, zulip, etc). Aside from the approval of the reviewers (#378, #382), the changes in this version of the proposal are minor in nature. They include quality-of-life improvements that should make the life of implementers in the spec phase of RFC5 easier. Furthermore, the proposal now lists a set of user stories compiled from what community members collected in #84 to further motive the RFC.

Hackathon attendees (@dstansby , @bogovicj, @d-v-b , @LucaMarconato, @will-moore , @clbarnes , @EuAtarax, @fstur) feel free to look over this and provide feedback.

Commenters over at #84 - I hope you'll find your user stories well represented here :)

🏁 Deadline for discussion 🏁

The changes in here are not very major and hopefully do not keep us from moving forward towards 0.6.dev3 and 0.6, respectively. I would suggest to try and wrap this up until the end of the first full Jan. 2026 week (Friday, Jan 9th). Again, different opinions welcome.

Let's hear it :)

Edit: Formatting

[github-actions]

Automated Review URLs

• Readthedocs
• render latest/index.bs
• diff latest modified

[dstansby]

Couple of comments, but looks great otherwise 👍 Note I have only read this, and not tried to implement it, so there might be things that come up when I implement. 🤞 I'll do that before the review deadline here, so might have follow up comments too.

[jo-mueller]

@will-moore @d-v-b @d-v-b @clbarnes @bogovicj @LucaMarconato thanks for your review(s) on this, I hope it's all been dealt with satisfactorily. If you want to give it a final look, I think now's a good time - since the invited reviews already came out with approval, this is probably the last chance to make changes to how final RFC5 will look like. Of course that doesn't mean that the ship for 0.6 has sailed yet.

Feel free to leave an "official" approval on the PR 👍

[will-moore]

Just noticed index.html still has Working version title: **0.6dev2** - Is that still right, or are we at dev3 now?

[will-moore]

Looks good. Thanks for all the work!

[jo-mueller]

Just noticed index.html still has Working version title: 0.6dev2 - Is that still right, or are we at dev3 now?

Errrr....good question. At this point I'd say that 0.6.dev3 is going to be constituted by a tagged release over at ome/ngff-spec, so that it's a bit out-of place for this proposal to declare a version anyway. But in a sense 0.6.dev3 is correct because 0.6.dev2 has already been released so that only 0.6.dev3 will contain all of this.

[jo-mueller]

Just noticed index.html still has Working version title: **0.6dev2** - Is that still right, or are we at dev3 now?

@will-moore tried to find it just now - which index.html are you referring to?

[will-moore]

https://github.com/ome/ngff/blob/1bb7b09c8016ac8bb90070f1d72a42b64fd95d2e/rfc/5/index.md#overview

[jo-mueller]

Right! I updated in 340af55. Merging this PR will not constitute 0.6.dev3, but since 0.6.dev2 has already been formerly released all of this will go into 0.6.dev3, so that's the correct version title here.