Talk:Naming Conventions
From XBRLWiki
| Revision as of 10:29, 12 October 2012 (edit) Hommes (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 10:44, 12 October 2012 (edit) Hommes (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
| === Comment-11 === | === Comment-11 === | ||
| - | RH: Is there a list of owners? 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 10:44, 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
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?
