Talk:Syntax Rules
From XBRLWiki
| Revision as of 10:57, 12 October 2012 (edit) Hommes (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 11:04, 12 October 2012 (edit) Hommes (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| === Comment-06 === | === Comment-06 === | ||
| RH: Making these attributes optional introduces 'default' behaviour for non presence. I would vote to make them mandatory (explicit) and work with the 'xbrli:Forever' name for the content of the model:toDate if appropriate. | RH: Making these attributes optional introduces 'default' behaviour for non presence. I would vote to make them mandatory (explicit) and work with the 'xbrli:Forever' name for the content of the model:toDate if appropriate. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Comment-07 === | ||
| + | RH: Including these attributes not for the reporting process but for managing the taxonomy is a bad idea. Information that is not intended for the reporters should not be included. It is very easy to create a proprietary linkbase holding these attributes (as part of a resource for instance) and keep this linkbase for internal use only. | ||
Revision as of 11:04, 12 October 2012
Contents |
Comments
Comment-01
RH: Is it also mandatory to have dates and/or dateTimes in them? Is the first modification date equal to the creation date?
Comment-02
RH: THis is a new construct: a concept being a resource? I think something else is meant.
Comment-03
RH: At one time there was discussion of having cube/table dependent labels on items (don't know just primaries or also members). This was done through assigning label relationships into the same ELR as the cube was made in. This idea has been left?
Comment-04
RH: verboseLabel is NOT the place to put the definition of a concept. The documentationLabel was intended for that. See 2.1 spec. documentation. This would set a bad precedent.
Comment-05
RH: documentationLabels and (legal) references are two completely different animals. Legal references cannot be in plain English as suggested in the source document. A reference is always something of a pointer, possibly a set of pointers (law, article, paragraph etc.). If the structured approach of these references using link:part is too complex for the users, another (single) reference (maybe even custom) may be in order, but DO NOT try to put structured information concatenated into a label resource.
Comment-06
RH: Making these attributes optional introduces 'default' behaviour for non presence. I would vote to make them mandatory (explicit) and work with the 'xbrli:Forever' name for the content of the model:toDate if appropriate.
Comment-07
RH: Including these attributes not for the reporting process but for managing the taxonomy is a bad idea. Information that is not intended for the reporters should not be included. It is very easy to create a proprietary linkbase holding these attributes (as part of a resource for instance) and keep this linkbase for internal use only.
