Talk:European Filing Rules
From XBRLWiki
| Revision as of 07:16, 16 October 2012 (edit) Katrin (Talk | contribs) (→Comment-04) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 17:48, 16 October 2012 (edit) Thierry.Declerck (Talk | contribs) (→Comments) Next diff → |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| The schemaRef should contain the full schemalocation because the version is not contained in the namespace. | The schemaRef should contain the full schemalocation because the version is not contained in the namespace. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Comment-07 === | ||
| + | |||
| + | In general: the word to be defined should not appear in the definition | ||
Revision as of 17:48, 16 October 2012
Contents |
Comments
Comment-01
RH: Can we use only 'instance' as the term for a report, XBRL document, filing document etc.?
KH: I agree. I'm going to change it to instance document.
Comment-02
RH: This 'rule' states that there is no rule for instance naming. I suggest to alter the rule to: Any taxonomy author MUST prescribe instance file naming conventions. We can make a couple of suggestions on how other projects have created such rules.
KH: There need not be any file name conventions. So I would suggest to use CAN instead of MUST.
RH: This touches on a more basic point; if we do not set rules on anything, should we mention it at all? Are examples than still appropriate? IMO it is required to have it explicit (I always favor explicit to implicit). For rules MUST and MAY are the most appropriate terms. So this one should revert to a MAY rule.
Comment-03
KH: Rule should be reformulated.
Comment-04
KH: Should it be allowed ot define units?
Comment-05
Rule to be added that no extension of reporting entities on European taxonomies are allowed.
Comment-06
The schemaRef should contain the full schemalocation because the version is not contained in the namespace.
Comment-07
In general: the word to be defined should not appear in the definition
