As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.
So you want a better idea of what the in-camera JPG conversion will look like, if displayed on an uncalibrated monitor with low resolution and a poor color gamut? Sounds like a big minus for EVF to me, particularly for anyone who shoots RAW...
I'm surprised, you don't usually make bad arguments. You have invoked the "it is thus and ever shall be" argument. I'm saying I want an improved Live View through the viewfinder, and I believe it's achievable in the next few years. I'm not saying current EVF is adequate.
You said more than merely 'improved live view', you said you want the EVF to allow you to, "...compose using what the sensor can see," in terms of color and DR.
RAW data is 14-bit, displays and EVFs are generally 8-bit - that's a significant gap in color and DR. The highest-end professional video editing displays and EVFs support 10-bit color, and I suppose you are suggesting that displays will catch up...but high-end cameras (I have some in the lab) use 16-bit ADCs, and those will also show up in mainstream consumer imaging down the line.
You are apparently assuming display technology will improve while image capture technology remains stagnant...sorry, but that's the bad argument here. Both are improving (and will likely continue to) in parallel, and given the already large lead that image capture has in terms of bit depth, it's highly unlikely that you'll ever be able to look through an EVF and 'see what the sensor sees'.