Re: Department of redundancy department

Subject: Re: Department of redundancy department
From: Lou Quillio <public -at- quillio -dot- com>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 15:02:36 -0400

Eva Whitley wrote:

From a document my collegue is editing: "Each switch is populated with
various modules. In some instances, these modules are redundant and in
other instances they are not redundant."

So, is this statement redundant?

Right, so to encapsulate ($10, ka-ching!) some of the other responses, are we talking about redundancy in the sense of failover, or to let the user know that some functions can be reached by several routes?

This redundancy thing comes up a lot. The usual fix is to get rid of "redundant" altogether -- but that's tough, because folks who like "redundant" really, really like it. Heck, I like it. Still, it's really context-dependent, and I must admit (to myself) its problematicalishness.



New from Quadralay Corporation: WebWorks ePublisher Pro!
Completely XML-based online publishing. Easily create 14 online formats, including 6 Help systems, in a streamlined project-based workflow. Word version ships in June, FrameMaker version ships in July. Sign up for a live, online demo!

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Send administrative questions to lisa -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Department of redundancy department: From: Eva Whitley

Previous by Author: Re: A technique to get on development's good side
Next by Author: Re: Another Newbie question about procedures
Previous by Thread: RE: Department of redundancy department
Next by Thread: Re: Department of redundancy department

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads