Thanks for this additional sfz-related site. I hope Plogue and Cakewalk, and others, are talking to each other since the last thing we'd want is for sfz files to be incompatible (though I guess they already are).
I participated for several years in CSA, ANSI and ISO standardization committees for electronic (office) document interchange and I really appreciate companies getting together to hammer out a common interchange format that all can benefit from. Unfortunately, even if a standard is worked out, companies can continue to go their separate ways and the standard becomes useless. This is why we're all currently stuck with either Adobe or Microsoft documents, some companies (the big ones, naturally) couldn't grasp that everyone would be better off working together instead of fighting each other, and those two won out.
Just like for documents, the sfz specification defines an architecture that you have to limit yourself to if you want true interchange. You can compete on UI, ease of use and similar things, but you can't touch the architecture without violating the standard. Looks like Plogue wasn't able to resist the temptation, and Cakewalk, with its monopoly, has certainly done what it wanted all along. If a company wants to add functionality, it has to get the approval of the other companies, but it's not easy for companies to accept this.
I don't see Cakewalk pushing sfz forward. It's nice to see Plogue doing so, but if they're the only ones, what's the point ? The lack of an official, current and multi-party specification does not inspire confidence.
Since sfz does define an architecture, is would be nice (for those who like this level of detail) to have a nice UI/editor that gives access to every item of the specification. Having designed WYSIWYG structured document editors back when we were all copying Xerox, I really feel the urge to tackle sfz, if only I had the time.