Talk:Naming Conventions
From XBRLWiki
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
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?
