Talk:European Filing Rules
From XBRLWiki
| Revision as of 14:12, 9 October 2012 (edit) Katrin (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 08:23, 11 October 2012 (edit) Katrin (Talk | contribs) (→Comment-01) Next diff → |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| === Comment-01 === | === Comment-01 === | ||
| RH: Can we use only 'instance' as the term for a report, XBRL document, filing document etc.?<br> | RH: Can we use only 'instance' as the term for a report, XBRL document, filing document etc.?<br> | ||
| - | KH: I agree. | + | KH: I agree. I'm going to change it to instance document. |
| === Comment-02 === | === Comment-02 === | ||
Revision as of 08:23, 11 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.
Comment-03
KS: If a necessary unit does not exist in the registry, for example a unit for employee headcount, then filer provided extensions to the registry are allowed. Where possible common extensions should be incorporated into a more general filing system extension to the XBRL unit registry to encourage the consistent use of units across filings. Unit extensions should follow the same principles as element extensions where applicable e.g. There must be no creation of an extension unit duplicating a unit already present in the registry.
