« Back

CoreFiling Ltd

Structural representation of taxonomy changes: Respondents are asked to consider if these arrangements will in fact provide them with any benefits, or if they believe an alternative possible implementation would generally be more beneficial.
We're comfortable with the namespace remaining unchanged, but the fact that the *location* stays that same with each release is a problem (in effect this is making in-place edits to the files as represented on the web).
Tables utilising new layout features: Since both of these are features that happened not to have appeared in the previous version of the taxonomy (although they are within the ambit of the table linkbase specification) respondents are asked to consider if these layout features will cause them implementation problems.
We support the use of any features of the table linkbase specification.
Taxonomy file version tags: Respondents’ views are sought on the relative value of each approach, or any reasonable alternative.
We would marginally favour having the same version tag for all files in a given release, but either approach would be unnecessary if the version was captured in the URL, which is what we'd prefer (see our detailed comments attached).
Introduction approach: Respondents’ opinions are sought on any practical considerations as to the date of transition to remittance under the 2.1 sub taxonomies.
Upload files
Contact name
Mark Goodhand