REMARK: Because this applies only to company extensions, in principle there could be a test in which a standard taxonomy schema having an 'include' element would be 'GOOD', but there is no such standard taxonomy schema.

REMARK: edgartaxonomies.xml is the ONLY authoritative source of "standard taxonomies".

REMARK: There is a mismatch between the date formats currently accepted by EDGAR, and the possible ISO8601 formats.

REMARK: This only applies to a company extension schema. A standard taxonomy could in principle have an underscore in their namespace prefix, but there is no such standard taxonomy and therefore no such test variation.

REMARK: This applies only to company extension schemas. In principle a standard taxonomy is allowed to have an embedded linkbase. But there is no such standard taxonomy and therefore no such test variation.

REMARK: there are no variations for linkbases other than link:labelLink, but the rule does apply to all of them.

REMARK: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt notes that the host component of a URL is case insensitive, a URI in Interactive Data documents has a case-sensitive host component. The same rfc allows characters in URIs that are not normally thought of as legal; variation 000gd exercises that in a minimal way without wading into the complex realm of XML character escaping versus URI character escaping.

REMARK: This applies only to company extension schemas. In principle a standard taxonomy could have a different authority part in the targetNamespace and a role or arcrole declaration. There being no such standard taxonomies, there are no such 'gd' variations.

REMARK: this applies to the entire DTS, not just the company schema which is what the similar XBRL 2.1 constraint applies to.

REMARK: this applies only to company extension schemas, so that exceptions in the us-roles-YYYY-MM-DD.xsd schemas are not invalid.

REMARK: This applies only to company extension schemas, so that exceptions in the us-roles-YYYY-MM-DD.xsd schemas are not invalid.

REMARK: This was never meant to apply to resource roles, and that will be corrected in a future release.

REMARK: Because the (incorrectly percieved) importance of instance rendering has continued to increase beyond reason, the validator now enforces an even more stringent criterion than documented in manual version v13. The regex is "[0-9]+ \- {Statement|Disclosure|Schedule|Document} \-.*[^\s]"; this discrepancy between the text of the manual and the actual validation MUST be corrected in the manual ASAP.

REMARK: This applies only to company extension schemas. In principle a standard taxonomy schema could violate this, but there are no such taxonomy schemas and so no 'good' variation.

REMARK: An arcrole definition should not have to match the same pattern as presentation definitions, but we do so in this testcase to avoid spurious errors.

REMARK: this applies to the entire DTS not just company extension schemas.

REMARK: The test for emptiness is done after trimming.

REMARK: this applies only to company extension schemas, so if there were any exceptions standard schemas those would not be invalid.

REMARK: only http://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edgartaxonomies.xml defines "standard taxonomy".

REMARK: This only applies to the company extension schemas. If there were a standard taxonomy schema that violated this, it would nevertheless be good. There being no such standard taxonomy, there is no such test variation.

REMARK: This only applies to the company extension schemas. If there were a standard taxonomy schema that violated this, it would nevertheless be good. There being no such standard taxonomy, there is no such test variation.

REMARK: This was only meant to apply to element declarations in an xbrli substitution group. In the current EDGAR release, non-XBRL element declarations are effectively useless and if that were ever to change this rule should be changed and some new variations included.

REMARK: This only applies to company extension schemas, although it does hold for all standard taxonomies other than the ICI 2006 taxonomy. Hence the inclusion of a 'good' case 003gd that imports the ICI 2006 taxonomy. It is 'GOOD' with respect to this rule, but has dozens of violations of other EFM rules. ICI 2006 can only be used with EX-100 attachments that are not subject to Chapter 6 validations.

REMARK: This only applies to company extension schemas, although it also holds for all standard taxonomies. If there were a standard taxonomy that used xbrldt:typedDomainRef then there would be 'good' test variation covering it.

REMARK: This only applies to company extension schemas, although it does hold for all standard taxonomies other than the ICI 2006 taxonomy. The ICI 2006 taxonomy can only be used with EX-100 attachments, to which rules in Chapter 6 do not apply.

REMARK: This only applies to company extension schemas, although it does hold for all standard taxonomies other than the ICI 2006 taxonomy. The ICI 2006 taxonomy can only be used with EX-100 attachments, to which rules in Chapter 6 do not apply.

REMARK: This only applies to company extension schemas, although it does hold for all standard taxonomies other than the ICI 2006 taxonomy. The ICI 2006 taxonomy can only be used with EX-100 attachments, to which rules in Chapter 6 do not apply.

REMARK: This only applies to company extension schemas, although it does hold for all standard taxonomies. If there were any such standard taxonomy it would be included in a 'good' test variation.

REMARK: This does allow @substitutionGroup to be absent, so it would allow non-XBRL elements and that may have some use in some future EDGAR release.

REMARK: This only applies to company extension schemas, although it does hold for all standard taxonomies. If there were any such standard taxonomy it would be included in a 'good' test variation.

REMARK: This only applies to company extension schemas, although it does hold for all standard taxonomies.

REMARK: The original wording required a specific US type, not a type derived from it. Now, types in any standard namespace can trigger this rule. 006gd flips to 006ng as a consequence.

REMARK: this only applies to company extension schemas, although it holds for all standard taxonomies. If there were a standard taxonomy that violated the rule, it would appear in a 'good' test variation.