Talk:XBRL

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale

Contents

[edit] NPOV

This is blatant publicity. Wikipedia should not be free advertisement web space.Lancet (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2007 (UTC) User: MikeWillisX9 Jan 13 2008""Free Advertisement"" for a freely available open standard? This is an awareness page designed to educate readers about XBRL. XBRL is a freely available open standard specifically designed to enhance business reporting processes. This article "ROI on XBRL", written by UTC may help in that regard: http://www.aicpa.org/PUBS/JOFA/jun2007/stantial.htm User: MikeWillisX9 Jan 13 2008

  • The format (would be standard) may be free as well as the consortium in itself is "non profit" but that's simply the way this consulting product is marketed. XBRL is being pushed for the money and there nothing wrong about that. Wikipedia is not a free advertising outlet for any product (as "free" as it may be), it's an encyclopedia and as such it has to be objective and balanced.The XBRL Consortium may enhance awareness and educate about its format through other means than Wikipedia.Lancet (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The introduction sounds more like an advertisement. This passage is not neutral:

"The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in coordination with the Federal Reserve Board and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, launched a large and very successful XBRL project ..." (emphasis added) User: MikeWillisX9 Jan 13 2008The 'large and very successful description was removed and replaced with the conclusions reach in the FDICs own white paper. When project results includes a process spaning 5 independent government agencies, a data error rate reduction from 68% to under 5%, a processing timeline decrease from 45 to under 2 days and the redeployment of over 800 individuals; many would consider it fairly large and successful. These adjectives ("large and successful") have been removed. How did XBRL enable these results? XBRL provided the semantical platform or standardized language to articulate not only the Call Report disclosures, but also the related validation rules and analytical concepts. These standardized rules enabled the consumers (Banking Regulators) to share them with the preparers (Banks) so that the data, validation rules and analytical formulas and related explanations could be applied by the preparers when they prepared the reports rather than weeks later after the consumers validation and analysis processes were applied to the reported data. XBRL enabled the preparers to provide higher quality data the first time and also the accompanying explanations to common analytical fluctuations. The ability to standardized the Call Report disclosures as well as the related business rules was a critical part of the overall process change enabled by the XBRL Standard. User: MikeWillisX9 Jan 13 2008

This project is described in the Note [2] at the end of this paragraph which includes a useful explanation of this project. Also, within the FDIC's 2006 Annual Report they cite this project in the following paragraph: ""Central Data Repository The Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), which includes the FDIC, won a 2006 award from Government Computer Newsfor outstanding and innovative use of IT in government for the successful launch of the new Central Data Repository (CDR) to collect Call Report data using XBRL (eXtensible Business Reporting Language). The CDR project was also awarded the[1] Chief Information Officer’s Top 100 award for its outstanding work using XBRL for financial reporting.""

The FDIC Annual report is here: http://www.fdic.gov/about/strategic/report/2006annualreport/section1.pdf

The following passage should be rephrased to state facts instead of conclusions, or at least documentation should be provided.

"This coordinated U.S. project has proven that XBRL can provide real business value by reducing burden and duplication, improving data transparency and enabling more timely analysis."

I have added the following recognitions of this project:

1) Government Computer News (GCN): http://www.postnewsweektech.com/awards/Agency_Winners_Fax.pdf Information about the award in general is here: http://www.postnewsweektech.com/awards/main.html

2) The Computer World Honors Program info is here: http://www.cwhonors.org/case_studies/FederalDespositInsuranceCorp.pdf

3) CIO 100 Award: Description of award: http://www.cio.com/awards/cio100/index.html List of recipients: http://www.cio.com/archive/081506/winners.html

I second that the first part of this entry sounds like an advertisement for XBRL; it sounds like this entry was written by the XBRL group. I suggest making this page more factual by using more clear and concise non-sided statements. Many in the industry know/agree that certain people are pushing for XBRL, which again, sounds like they are the ones that wrote this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.190.125 (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User: MikeWillisX9 Jan 13 2008This article is attempting to provide general awareness on this freely available open standard for business information. The FDIC project is one example of how it can be used to streamline analytical processes. There are other case study examples on the XBRL.org site. The purpose of sharing one or two here is that unless there are specific examples of how XBRL enhances business reporting and analysis processes, then there is little market interest in adoption, only skeptics who may not fully understand the detail process problems that XBRL was specifically designed to address. Suggestions on how to explain that standards are specifically designed to address pervasive supply chain process problems would be greatly welcome. User: MikeWillisX9 Jan 13 2008

What follows is a short description and justification of the edits I've done on User: MikeWillisX9 (who should create himself a real user) contributions:

  • "emerging" is not an objective term.
  • It's not yet a standard it's a format.
  • The consortium in itself is legally "not-for-profit" but the infomediaries and software vendors are in it for the money.
  • "Even Starkman concedes that with more work and information dedicated to developing XBRL, "it could hold some promise."

Why "even Starkman"? Is Starkman a comic strip arch enemy of XBRL? Nobody is disputing that XBRL could hold some promise (what doesn't?). The dedication of more work and information to XBRL is exactly what the XBRL Consortium is pushing for, others may think that more work and information should be invested in more simple and cost efficient options.Lancet (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A solicitation for clarification: 1. Is the objection here related to the inclusion of an example (the FDIC example)? or the overall topic of XBRL? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeWillisX9 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MikeWillisX9,
Maybe the best way to understand the objections would be to put yourself in the position of a college student that is doing some research on IT and accounting techniques and has to inquire about what XBRL is and how it works.
Do you think that the FDIC adoption and the awards it has been granted for it is a relevant information that could fill up most of his enquiry?
Or do you rather think, as I do, that more technical information on how XBRL is made and how it interacts with users and softwares at different levels should be provided, including some real life examples with excerpts of taxonomies, linkbases and instance files.
The article should not seek to convince people to use or not to use XBRL but to give factual information. "It's an emerging standard that has been adopted by the FDIC and received lots of awards" won't do this.Lancet (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications. Here are some additional Questions: 1. What specifically would you remove from the article to be 'neutral' according to your perspective?

I would make the introduction shorter, summing up to this or something in kind:
XBRL (Extensible Business Reporting Language) is an XML-based format to define and exchange business and financial performance information.
XBRL is a standards-based way to communicate business and financial performance data. These communications are defined by metadata set out in taxonomies. Taxonomies capture the definition of individual reporting elements as well as the relationships between elements within a taxonomy and in other taxonomies.
The format is governed and marketed by a international consortium (XBRL International Incorporated) of approximately 600 organizations, including regulators, government agencies, infomediaries and software vendors.
XBRL International is supported by its jurisdictions — independent bodies, generally organised on a country-specific basis — that work to promote the adoption of XBRL and the development of taxonomies that define the information exchange requirements of their particular domains. XBRL is being adopted around the world to replace paper-based and legacy electronic business information collection by a wide range of regulators. Its adoption has been quicker in Europe and Asia than in the U.S., where it is just now starting to be voluntarily pilot-tested for the disclosure of SEC filings.
The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in coordination with the Federal Reserve Board and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, launched an XBRL project in October 2005 involving the collection of quarterly bank financial statements (Call Reports) from over 8300 U.S. banks. Use of XBRL is mandatory and the data is posted on the Internet for public use and analysis.
The first European project for the Dutch Waterboards, and additional XBRL projects in Europe including Spain, Belgium and others, have given Europe a leading role in implementations. Currently a major project of the Dutch Government for XBRL reporting by all businesses as well as (semi-)government organizations like cities and health institutes will make it the first nation-wide implementation.

Lancet (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I revised the introduction today using the langauge provided above with a few minor clarifications.

2. Would you allow me to edit some of your 'facts'? For example, the taxonomy example you provided is absent any elements and is incomplete as it is only includes one of the XML Schema files and doesn't include other related files (e.g. calculation, defintion, reference, etc.) that are all part of XBRL Taxonomy structures. It may be better to point readers to existing taxonomy sites rather than try to portray them here.

Sure, you are as free to edit as me or anybody else is (that's what Wikipedia is all about!).
Maybe it was not a good idea to insert the samples, they are also quite old.
However it would be useful to show with examples how Items, Tuples, Contexts, Scenarios, Footnotes, etc. are coded in XBRL.(It would be maybe more instructive than long apologetic quotes of white papers).Lancet (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


3. Would you advise on where in the November XBRL International November Progress report you include as support (footnote 8)for the listing of countries who have definitively decided not to adopt XBRL? For example, Denmark or Sweden?

On page four, right side, in the middle , in the map: Austria, Czech, Denmark, Eesti, Latvia, Portugal, Slovak, Sweden, UK are listed and painted in brown (that's no very fair) as countries having Definitely Other Format.Lancet (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeWillisX9 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Lancet (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Xbrl-logo.png

Image:Xbrl-logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section refusal to adopt

I would like to see a section on adopters as well. Just to stay balanced.

Aixroot (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Aixroot, I changed the section to Adoption in Europe giving the full list of countries.Lancet (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. What you've provided is a list of countries where the banking supervisor has agreed to use the COREP taxonomies. This is not a list of comprehensive adoption of XBRL for any other purpose. Either "Adoption" should be qualified as to use by a regulator (financial, banking, taxation, stock exchange, companies registrar, etc.) or the material should be removed. As it is, it is just wrong.Dvunkannon (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute

So far as I'm concerned the neutrality dispute is now closed. Therefore I removed the corresponding tag.

However I think that the article is still far from being perfect and that its technical aspect should be improved and enhanced.

In my view, some links to companies that sell XBRL based software but don't give information about the standard itself should be removed. Lancet (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'See also' section removed

These are commercial links to Microsoft products: Open Financial Exchange (OFX)and Quicken Interchange Format (QIF) that can do without free advertisement. Lancet (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Financial message

This category does not exist, so I removed it. Lancet (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Critics section

The "Critics" section contains two quotes from the same person, Jay Starkman. There are more persistent critics of XBRL, such as Dennis Keeling of BASDA, who are somewhat more penetrating than Mr Starkman. However, if we had NPOV questions about the salemanship in the lead paragraphs, should we not apply the same standards here? I would suggest that instead of carping quotations, critics should address the specifics in a neutral and informative manner.Dvunkannon (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I restored the "Critics" section to its previous state. There is no rule forbidding more than one quote by the same person. The quoted criticisms don't have to be balanced, it's the article as a whole that has to be balanced, neutral and informative. Whatever the merits of XBRL might be, articles on the Wikipedia should not be promotionalLancet (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC).

Yes, that's a theme you repeat very consistently. I don't see how expanding and explaining the criticisms could be considered promotional, so it is somewhat irrelevant here. It is also not helpful to delete the entire section.Dvunkannon (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] COREP

For example, CEBS, the Commission of European Banking Supervisors, has developed XBRL taxonomies for use in Basel II reporting for COREP and FINREP. Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Spain have decided upon optional or compulsory adoption of XBRL for COREP.

Actually each European country has its own COREP taxonomy, thus there is no way to compare COREP instance files from different European countries. Moreover, the COREP taxonomy is unfinished because the Bank of Spain that was charged with promoting its development stopped funding it. So there never has been a stable version of a COREP taxonomy proposal. For the time being, that is, since two years, the COREP project is going nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancet75 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This material is reworked from from your own quotation of a recent XBRL progress report, edited to make it clear that it was about the adoption of specific XBRL taxonomies, not of XBRL as a whole. I think your point that COREP is actually a family of taxonomies is a valid point of discussion with respect to the design of the COREP taxonomies, and should be included this discussion. I don't think it is helpful to delete the reference entirely. I don't think mentioning the existence and adoption of COREP taxonomies is "promotional", nor should notable taxonomy adoption be pushed entirely off this page.Dvunkannon (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] SPAM

I removed this 2 entries by user "Colcomgroup" :

17th XBRL International Conference: "Evolution in Business Reporting - XBRL in Action" in Eindhoven, Netherlands, May 5-8, 2008. Conference details, registration and sponsorship information found at http://conference.xbrl.org.

  • The official XBRL International conference site - Visit here for the latest details about the upcoming XBRL International conference. Next: 17th International Conference: "Evolution of Business Reporting - XBRL in Action" in Eindhoven, Netherlands, May 5-8, 2008

This are blatant advertisements for a commercial event, it's almost vandalic to add such material to an article that is supposed to be encyclopaedic, though sadly it is not.

For the same reason I marked the article with the spam-cleanup tag. Lancet (talk) 09:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Colcomgroup did again post this advertisement. I undeed it again. Lancet (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC) And again Lancet (talk) 14:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If Lancet75 were a member of the official organization that develops XBRL globally, he might understand that the international XBRL conferences are in fact education forums that occur twice a year that all the stakeholders attend to learn more about XBRL.Colcomgroup (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This forum, as educational as it may be, should not be advertised on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia article and not the XBRL website. Cheers Lancet (talk) 15:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The 17th XBRL Conference is an official conference by the global consortium to educate more stakeholders about XBRL. this is not an advertisement. Colcomgroup (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Advertisements may be about official or unofficial products or services. This event is a service and is clearly commercially oriented. Even if it where non-profit or charitable it should not be advertised on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancet75 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GENERAL CLEANUP

I removed all the material that was outside the article's scope: That is, the technical description of an XML based technique for tagging financial statements. The material about The XBRL Consortium and its national branches is not relevant to this subject. By the way the "non profit" XBRL Consortium was created by employees of the consulting company PricewaterhouseCoopers and all the "independent" national XBRL "jurisdictions" are controlled by PricewaterhouseCoopers employees.

Just to give an indication on how this "non-profit" organization works in France, to be able to enter in the French XBRL website and to have the right to attend French XBRL regular meetings, you have to pay a yearly membership fee of 6000€.

Nor is relevant the process of this standards adoption or the resistance to adopt it. Having, as I hope, removed most of the promotional material, the Criticisms section is no longer relevant.

This are the removed portions :

The XBRL format is governed and marketed by a international consortium (XBRL International Incorporated) of approximately 600 organizations, including, companies, regulators, government agencies, infomediaries and software vendors. XBRL International is supported by its jurisdictions — independent bodies, generally organised on a country-specific basis — that work to promote the adoption of XBRL and the development of taxonomies that define the information requirements of their particular domains. XBRL is being adopted around the world in order to migrate business information process from paper-based and legacy electronic proprietary formats more fully onto Internet oriented processes (both for external and internal reporting processes). The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in coordination with the Federal Reserve Board and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, launched an XBRL project in October 2005 involving the collection of quarterly bank financial statements (Call Reports) from over 8300 U.S. banks. Use of XBRL is mandatory and the data is posted on the Internet for public use and analysis. A case study prepared by the banking regulators can be found here. The first European project for the Dutch Waterboards, and additional XBRL projects in Europe including Spain, Belgium and others, have given Europe a leading role in implementations. Currently a major project of the Dutch Government for XBRL reporting by all businesses as well as (semi-)government organizations like cities and health institutes will make it the first nation-wide implementation. The 'Dutch Taxonomy Project' is outlined here.

Criticisms

"XBRL is not an accountancy product . It is a consulting product. It is a product in search of a market, and they found it in government mandates. The consulting firms that promoted it are drooling at the fee potential, which is huge. ....R. Corey Booth, the SEC’s director of information technology, painted a sombre picture, admitting that the SEC received just 22 XBRL filings from nine companies in 2005, most of which were involved in promoting XBRL, that there was no investor demand for XBRL information, and the difficulty of rendering XBRL documents in human readable format." [1] "If it was really that great, it wouldn't have to be mandated...It's being pushed by the people who have an interest in pushing it." [2]

Adoption of Taxonomies and in applications

Adoption of XBRL means choosing to use XBRL taxonomies as the basis of a shared understanding of the data exchanged in XBRL instance documents. XBRL International is not the source of most XBRL taxonomies, instead they are developed by authorities with standing, such as the banking regulator for a banking taxonomy. For example, CEBS, the Commission of European Banking Supervisors, has developed XBRL taxonomies for use in Basel II reporting for COREP and FINREP. Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Spain have decided upon optional or compulsory adoption of XBRL for COREP. Other European banking supervisors differed: Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Portugal, Slovak Republic and Sweden have also definitely decided not to adopt this format while Hungary, Estonia, Greece,Lithuania, Bulgaria and Italy remain undecided and Switzerland is not even considering the matter.[3]. In November 2006 the FSA decided not to adopt this standard in the United Kingdom[4]. However, in the UK, online filing of company accounts and tax computations in the format will become mandatory on 1st April 2011[5] following on from the recommendations made in the Carter Report. Ultimately, the filing deadlines set by Companies House and HMRC will be aligned thereby requiring only one online submission to made. The XBRL tagged data obtained in this way will be shared by both agencies. Another perspective is to look at a jurisdiction and see how many different uses of XBRL exist within the jurisdiction, which will lead to leverage for companies reporting the same data to multiple regulators. In countries such as Spain and Japan, the national tax authority, the central bank, the financial supervisory agency, and the principal stock exchange have all begun pilots or announced the use of XBRL. There can also be adoption of XBRL for the purposes of internal reporting within a company, or as part of an informediaries business model.

Cheers Lancet (talk) 10:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Lancet75, I would urge you to reconsider such a large change to the content of this page, for example it may be more considerate of other people's opinions if you pursued discussions of the appropriateness of individual sections independently. I have tried to do this in my previous edits.

The scope of this page is your opinion. Other pages have a Criticisms section, so you create Critics. Other pages don't have a Financial Message section, so you delete that. What about Adoption? You are being arbitrary in how you think (or justify) how you want this page structured. Please talk (on the Talk page) about deleting sections which you created and other people are editing before doing so.

    • "Other pages don't have a Financial Message section, so you delete that."
      David,
      Financial Message was listed on this article as a category, the link was red because this category does not exist. If you think that this category should exist then you should first create it and then add it to this article.
      Cheers Lancet (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There are other pages about technical standards that discuss both the standard itself and the organization that supports the standard, such as HL7. I suggest that if you feel strongly about the matter, you should create an XBRL International page and move material there, rather than deleting material completely. Similarly for XBRL jurisdictions and taxonomy projects. However, I think you will see that such pages will tend to be rather small, and generate suggestions to merge them back into a central XBRL page.

The position of PricewaterhouseCoopers within the XBRL community is not what you believe it to be. The national movements in Japan, Spain, the NTP, and the Australian SBR project are the major places where XBRL is advancing around the world, and none of them has significant PwC participation. PwC has been one of many subcontractors to XBRL US in the US GAAP Taxonomy Project inthe US. PwC does not dominate XBRL Japan, US, or any other jurisdiction I am aware of.

    • I'm aware that PwC dominates the France jurisdiction.

The choice of fee structure varies among different XBRL jurisdictions. If XBRL US or FR have high fees, XBRL Japan has very low fees, and very high numbers of members as a result. If it surprises you that non-profit organizations charge membership fees, you need to do more research. The W3C charges far higher fees. The financial report of XBRL International is available on their web site. If your firm feels disenfranchised by the fee structure of XBRL France, that is not a reason to complain by manipulating this page.

    • I'm not complaining nor manipulating and it's indecorous from you to suggest this.

I'm proud of the contribution of PwC partners and staff to the growth of XBRL. But I am more proud of the international and cross company cooperation that has made XBRL a success. If XBRL was perceived in the marketplace of ideas as a PwC proprietary product, it would not have 600 other companies and government bodies supporting it around the world.

    • XBRL is not perceived as a PwC proprietary product but that is exactly what it is behind the XBRL International and independent jurisdictions façade put up for that purpose allowing it to "have 600 other companies and government bodies supporting it around the world".

In the interest of full disclosure, I had a hand in writing a large number of the core documents of XBRL. I currently work for PwC, and previously worked for KPMG, LLP when people voiced concerns that that firm had a hegemony over XBRL. But my edits to this page have not been attempts to promote either firm. I rewrote the Criticisms section to expand it and make it clearer, because after eight years, I am more familiar with criticisms of XBRL than anybody, inside or outside of the consortium. However, by bringing up PwC in this discussion, and the fee structure of XBRL France, I question your neutrality and your ability to edit this page constructively. Please reconsider you actions, and why you have camped out on this page.

    • "However, by bringing up PwC in this discussion, and the fee structure of XBRL France, I question your neutrality and your ability to edit this page constructively." I could likewise put forward the argument that you, being an employee of PwC, there is a COI that impedes your ability to contribute to this article with objectivity and neutrality.
    • "why you have camped out on this page" Because this page does belong to me as well as to everybody else. This is far from being the only article where I "camp out". Did you think this article is another concealed PwC product?
      Cheers Lancet (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Dvunkannon (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • David,
    I proceeded to a general cleanup because the article was an ugly, inharmonious and confusing patchwork. I don't think it could be in anybody's interest to leave in that state.
    I did my best to edit the article to make it as informative, coherent and neutral as possible without reflecting my opinions on the standard and the organisations that are pushing it.
    If a reader finds the information about XBRL interesting enough he will surely go to linked Official XBRL website where he will learn all there is to know about XBRL International and is jurisdictions.
    I'm sure that you could make a much better article, in line with the job you did forKPGM. But, whatever you do, remember that Wikipedia is allergic to all sorts of advertisements and promotional materials.
    My edits are based on articles like XSLT that are descriptive of their standards and don't contain verbose descriptions about WC3's aims and functioning nor about the standards adoption.
    I find indeed appropriate your suggestion of creating an article for XBRL International, even if it eventually ends up being merged with the XBRL article.
    Cheers Lancet (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peacock language and enticement

I changed and moved

XBRL's Global Ledger Framework is a set of taxonomies that is unique in being the only taxonomy developed and recommended by XII and falling under the XII licensing and free-use policies.

to

XBRL's Global Ledger Framework is the only set of taxonomies that is developed and recommended by XBRL International, Inc.

XII (what is this?) replaced by XBRL International, Inc.


  • As is clear throughout the XBRL web page, XII is how XBRL International refers to itself in shorthand. A casual glance at the news items (e.g., "XII Board of Directors reaffirms the stability of the XBRL 2.1 Specification") show this to be the case. Rather than remove the reference, it may be more appropriate to clean up the entry by providing the full reference, introduct the short hand, and then use that short hand consistently throughout.
    • Thanks for your answer ip 74.69.77.163, I xii what you mean. Cheers Lancet (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


Please remember that this is an encyclopaedia article and not an advertisement outlet.

Don't bother to say thanks, you're welcome.

Cheers Lancet (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spam "Reporting Estandar S.L."

Tags have been placed accordingly.

Reporting Standard XBRL processor provides an API to let applications read and write all the information in an XBRL DTS (Discoverable Taxonomy Set) without having to worry about the underlaying XBRL syntax.

Don't worry about the underlying syntax just give us your money and we do that for you. Anyway you don't have a choice because if you try to master the syntax by yourself, we at XBRL Inc. and its associates, will add layers of complexity to the standard as to ensure that you're always going to depend upon our services.

This is the XBRL business model.

Cheers Lancet (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XBRL Examples

I noticed that there are some pretty extensive examples of XBRL code in the article. I can't tell who added them, but I think it would also be helpful to the reader to see what the code produces when read by an XBRL reader. By showing the output, the reader can get an idea of why anyone would want to use XBRL. --Glennfcowan (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC) --Lancet (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)