@davenull - Please listen to what everyone else is telling you about the way you've gone about this topic. My reluctance to continue helping in an earlier post -- being tempted to bow out was due to that as well.
Nobody cares that you (or I for that matter) are using i2c-0. They are trying to express why most don't, and let you know about the problems with doing so. Raspberry Pi Foundation has every right to build their hardware and software as they wish and reserving two pins is not overstepping in any way, especially since it is still expressly possible to enable it. I know that my use of i2c-0 works now, but may not in future software versions. In fact, we've changed some things and the next rev of the system will not be using i2c-0. My hardware fits the physical dimensions of a HAT, but doesn't contain the eeprom and uses i2c-0 for other things. I don't call it a HAT, because it's not, it's just a convenient PCB form factor. My customers don't even know what a Raspberry Pi is, they are buying a large custom appliance that happens to contain one.
I have plans to develop and sell a HAT to RPi users. It will follow the entire HAT spec, including the required eeprom (and nothing else) on i2c-0. I'll call that one a HAT because it will fit the proper definition of a HAT.
The most disappointing thing to me is that I ignored your attitude early on, helped you come to a solution, and then I see you continue to treat people poorly.