This section is called "minimum redundancy" and not "no redundancy," because, as the introduction said, our technologies are used by humans, and humans can deal with redundancy, indeed have trouble when there is none. Too much redundancy is bad for the computer (or the programmer) though, because it means implementing the same thing several times. But it is good that, e.g., you can make a paragraph in HTML red in a couple of different ways. People have different styles and different mental models, and just by choosing a different style of working they can express something subtle that helps them, even though the computer cannot (yet) deal with it.
On the other hand, XML 1.0 defines a tree structure with four kinds of leaf nodes (text strings, processing instructions, empty elements and entities). Especially since they are abstract, it is not clear why there have to be four. Why not ten? or only one?
So what is too little and what is too much? That is hard to say. The overlap in functionality between different specifications should be kept small, because it can easily lead to incompatible models that programmers will have difficulty implementing, which in turn leads to bugs. Thus SVG doesn't provide a way to encode raster images, since PNG exists for that. On the other hand, within a single specification there may well be multiple ways to do the same thing, because it is easier to keep them consistent.
Take the example of coloring a paragraph red again: CSS offers different types of rules and different expressions that all mean "red." They add very little to the implementation effort but enhance the usability of CSS a lot. On the other hand, the attribute in HTML that makes a text red is officially deprecated, because it uses a different model from CSS (no cascading) and a slightly different syntax ("red" and "#FF0000" are OK, "#F00" is not).
One warning, though: accessibility often requires that the same information is provided in several ways, e.g., both as an image and as a text. To a certain extent the two formats indeed express the "same" information, but it is information at a different level, information that is only inferred from the actual data provided. We cannot express that information, so rather than an example of the Web having two ways of denoting the same thing, it is an example of the Web having no way to express something.