Talk:Naming Conventions

From XBRLWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 10:44, 12 October 2012 (edit)
Hommes (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 10:48, 12 October 2012 (edit)
Hommes (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 32: Line 32:
=== Comment-11 === === Comment-11 ===
 +
 +=== Comment-12 ===
RH: Is there a desired limit to the length of the ns-prefix? RH: Is there a desired limit to the length of the ns-prefix?
=== Comment-13 === === Comment-13 ===
RH: Referring to custom codes through a linkbase mechanism is fine, but using a label linkbase is not. These are not labels as intended by XBRL 2.1 (for human consumption). Why not using a proprietary linkbase with a dedicated arcrole expressing the exact meaning of the relationship? RH: Referring to custom codes through a linkbase mechanism is fine, but using a label linkbase is not. These are not labels as intended by XBRL 2.1 (for human consumption). Why not using a proprietary linkbase with a dedicated arcrole expressing the exact meaning of the relationship?

Revision as of 10:48, 12 October 2012

Contents

Comments

Comment-01

RH: Do we have a limited list of 'owners' that can be prescribed?

Comment-02

RH: How do we number the rules uniquely?

Comment-03

RH: I would like to emphasize that having reasons for each rule prevents a lot of questions. I.e. The reason for folder names to be lower case is to prevent problems between software running on Unix or Microsoft server.

Comment-04

RH: In a picture supplied in document 'eba-dpm-xbrl-mapping' more subfolders are presented than are explained in the text. Maybe DTS authors are free in creating extra layers within the 'dict' and 'releasedate' folders?

Comment-05

RH: I do not understand why the dictionary folders are not part of a version or release date. And why it is necessary to have a folder per schema. If there are multiple fam.xsd, met.xsd etcetera there may be a use otherwise a 1:1 has been created.

Comment-06

RH: A lot of new (to XBRL) terms are introduced, must they be linked to the definition page?

Comment-07

RH: Are the new terms agreed upon by the participants or still under review?

Comment-08

RH: There will be no divide in label and reference linkbase(name)s based on the role?

Comment-09

RH: The naming convention on D-linkbases is incomplete.

Comment-10

RH: The naming convention on P and C-linkbases forces children to come from the same schema or split linkbases per children origin. Is that the intention or is there a better algorhytm for the naming convention?

Comment-11

Comment-12

RH: Is there a desired limit to the length of the ns-prefix?

Comment-13

RH: Referring to custom codes through a linkbase mechanism is fine, but using a label linkbase is not. These are not labels as intended by XBRL 2.1 (for human consumption). Why not using a proprietary linkbase with a dedicated arcrole expressing the exact meaning of the relationship?

Personal tools