- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:38:43 +0200
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi, Maybe this was already discussed before I joined the working group, but I wonder why we don't replace "functionality" with "function" or "functions"? Functionality is defined as "capable of serving a purpose well" (WordNet 2.0) or as "waffle for 'features' or 'function'. The capabilities or behaviours of a program, part of a program, or system, seen as the sum of its features." (FOLDOC). I can't find any guideline or success criterion where this replacement does not make sense, and the result is always more readable. After all, we don't say: "If it walks like waterfowl and quacks like waterfowl..." when we really mean a duck ;-) Regards, Christophe Strobbe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/
Received on Tuesday, 30 August 2005 16:39:58 UTC