Requests for Comment
Practice Working Groups will issue Requests for Comment on topics of interest to users of XBRL. Those that have been published are shown below.
RFC on relationships specific FRTA January 11, 2010
Because of the volume of rules stated in the FRTA document, a division has been made to guarantee workable RFC documents. This RFC is about rules that have specific appliance and are dealing with relationships. Most of these rules were captured in chapter 3 of the FRTA document. Each of the existing rules will be listed here as a paragraph of chapter two and suitable comments will be inserted. Each comment section will conclude with a recommendation for adjustment or removal of the existing text if appropriate.
RFC on Relationships Generic - FRTA January 6, 2010
Because of the volume of rules stated in the FRTA document, a division has been made to guarantee workable RFC documents. This RFC is about rules that have generic appliance and are dealing with relationships. Most of these rules were captured in chapter 3 of the FRTA document. Each of the existing rules will be listed here as a paragraph of chapter two and suitable comments will be inserted. Each comment section will conclude with a recommendation for adjustment or removal of the existing text if appropriate.
The reader is requested to evaluate the comments and put more comments forward if they are deemed necessary to make an appropriate evaluation of the necessary changes to the current text of the FRTA rule. The final texts of the rules will be published as a minor release of the FRTA document which will also be available for the public for comments.
Naming Of Concepts In XBRL August 14, 2009
This document describes the naming of concepts in XBRL taxonomies. It sets out the main approaches to naming and considerations which may influence the choice between approaches. It seeks public comment on these issues as part of the process of establishing best practices for XBRL projects. This RFC assumes a basic familiarity with the use and principles of XBRL.
This Request for Comment (RFC) describes practices that should be considered when developing XBRL taxonomies and specifically when deciding on the design choices for XBRL taxonomy architecture offered by XBRL specifications. Traditionally XBRL taxonomies satisfied the XBRL 2.1 specifications [XBRL 2.1] and later the XBRL Dimensions 1.0 specification [DIMENSIONS]. As experience and knowledge in XBRL taxonomy development has grown, so has the emergence of different taxonomy architectures around the world. While being a reassuring sign that XBRL adoption is on the rise, this diversity of XBRL taxonomy architectures may result in interoperability issues between XBRL implementations.
Existing XBRL specifications offer a variety of ways to achieve similar, though not identical, objectives in regards to the architecture of XBRL taxonomies. The Financial Reporting Taxonomies Architecture (FRTA) 1.0 [FRTA] was one of the first attempts to align the possibilities offered by XBRL specifications, and it still remains a benchmark for a number of financial reporting taxonomies worldwide. Since the publication of the FRTA 1.0 in April 2005 more practical experience has been gained, particularly in the area of XBRL Dimensions 1.0. This requires updating existing best practices for XBRL taxonomy architecture or establishing new best practices.
This RFC identifies and analyses the similarities and differences between existing XBRL taxonomy architectures and solicits input from interested parties who have relevant experience to bring to bear. This RFC will be the basis for subsequently establishing best practices for the architecture of XBRL taxonomies.
Intellectual Property Policies for XBRL Taxonomies December 17, 2008
The Intellectual Property Policy (IPP) is a topic to be considered in any XBRL Project, especially in the development of XBRL Taxonomies for public use. Traditionally, national regulators and other authorities have a defined method when preparing and publishing laws, guidelines or other required documentation. The Official Registry, Journal or Gazette is the typical paper-based repository for this kind of regulation in various parts of the world. An equivalent method is to be used when XBRL taxonomies are to be published.
Precision, Decimals and Units October 9, 2008
The precision and decimals attributes in XBRL indicate the range in which the actual value of the fact that gave rise to its expressed value in the XBRL instance lies. They are sometimes misunderstood as having a relationship to scaling or presentation. Non conformant implementations and the use of units of measure such as "thousands" compound software interoperability problems. The effects of these attributes on calculations can cause difficulties in interpretation and misunderstandings are common. This document provides supplemental information to that provided in normative XBRL International publications, describes existing implementation conventions, attempts to clarify commonly misunderstood concepts, and requests additional commentary regarding empirical implementation experience.