Their question as to whether blogging is "too easy" really resonates with me: I began prototyping a CMS a while back on the premise that Blogging Should Be Harder (a reaction of sorts, I guess, to services like Posterous and Tumblr [full disclosure: I am a very happy user of the latter]). And what I found is that if it's hard to design a "blogazine"--manually setting type and choosing colors for each individual post--it's just as challenging to build an "anything goes" CMS.
I still think it's a great idea. There might only be a handful of people out there who would use it, but those that did would likely be producing really top-notch content.
What's the difference between your theoretical CMS and a WYSIWYG HTML editor? Something like Weebly or Google Sites? I'd think they already cover the "custom HTML" tactic pretty well. Beyond that the only thing you could possibly offer is custom graphic design, right? Or were you thinking pre-build templates in certain styles, the way iWeb offers for web design?
Well the difficulty really arises when you want to go a step beyond full HTML control and allow for JS and AJAX (think pagination with really artful page transitions). How do you allow users complete control without turning your service into a cesspool of XSS attacks?
Their question as to whether blogging is "too easy" really resonates with me: I began prototyping a CMS a while back on the premise that Blogging Should Be Harder (a reaction of sorts, I guess, to services like Posterous and Tumblr [full disclosure: I am a very happy user of the latter]). And what I found is that if it's hard to design a "blogazine"--manually setting type and choosing colors for each individual post--it's just as challenging to build an "anything goes" CMS.
I still think it's a great idea. There might only be a handful of people out there who would use it, but those that did would likely be producing really top-notch content.