[theforum] Re: Update

[Martin Burns]

On Mon, December 13, 2004 9:37 am, Garrett Coakley said:
> On Wednesday, December 8, 2004  @481, Garrett Coakley wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>Now that we have that information, we can come back to the 3col vs 2col
>>discussion and where we lay out those elements. I'm of a mind to stick to
>>2cols as per the current site just for the sake of speed of build, and
>>then have an architectural discussion in the new year.

> I take it
> from the silence to my original email that there are no problems with
> going with 2 columns now and revisiting the issue after the move?

Grand. Are we going to produce image comps next, or jump straight to
static HTML?

Cheers
Martin

-- 
"Names, once they are in common use   | Spammers: Send me email to
 quickly become mere sounds, their    | -> yumyum at easyweb.co.uk <- to train
 etymology being buried, like so many | my filter. Currently killing over
 of the earth's marvels, beneath the  | 99.8% of all known spams stone dead.
 dust of habit." - Salman Rushdie     |
http://nuclearelephant.com/projects/dspam

Wooden toys for toddlers:
http://www.purpur.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=95
Cute Baby Socks:
http://www.purpur.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=85_96