Talk:European Filing Rules

From XBRLWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 09:10, 11 October 2012 (edit)
Katrin (Talk | contribs)
(Comments)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 09:07, 12 October 2012 (edit)
Hommes (Talk | contribs)
(Comment-02)
Next diff →
Line 8: Line 8:
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.<br> 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.<br>
KH: There need not be any file name conventions. So I would suggest to use CAN instead of MUST. 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 === === Comment-03 ===

Revision as of 09:07, 12 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?

Personal tools