John Taber wrote:

My two cents - if the CMS or any other scripting thing does not really buy you a must have or great to have that you can't do otherwise without a lot of pain, then it's not worth it down the road. Warren Buffett swears by KISS so I tend to think it is a good thing to strive for. If the CMS does buy a lot, and if it's well done, then do it.

Yes, exactly. But there are different interpretations of this rule. I'd say that having an RSS feed is a fairly essential feature. I'd also say that maintaining a news section is a fairly essential feature. Now, the code for that needs to come from somewhere, and either someone on the Inkscape project has to write it, or we have to use publishing software from someone else. I think that by letting the WordPress developers deal with publishing and WordPress, it allows the Inkscape developers to get on with the task at hand: Inkscape.

This is a simplistic view ('scuse the repetition), I know, and there are issues to consider, which Bryce explained extremely well, but when it comes down to it, I say let the publishing people deal with the publishing, and the Inkscape people deal with the Inkscaping.

Just as an example: the only time you'd have to write (X)HTML with WordPress is when you want "advanced" things like blockquotes, lists, etc. All the paragraphing, validating (to an extent) and entity encoding is done for you, so you don't have to worry about it. The Inkscape website currently fails on validation due to non-validating news entries. Dates are also added automatically, so there's no chance of forgetting that.

I'll format my blogs simply using css (although even css doesn't work very well in IE for customers stuck with that so maybe I'll just keep my blogs in simple html).

I know quite a few people who would shoot you for saying that, although I'd rather they shot Microsoft ; ).

Jon